Phil Lewis: Denver gave people experiencing homelessness $1,000 a month. Results showed that close to half of the participants secured housing, and nearly $600K saved in public service costs due to fewer ER visits & jail stays. They also saw improved mental health.

Denver gave people experiencing homelessness $1,000 a month. Results showed that close to half of the participants secured housing, and nearly $600K saved in public service costs due to fewer ER visits & jail stays. They also saw improved mental health.

Denver gave people experiencing homelessness $1,000 a month. A year later, nearly half of participants had housing.www.yahoo.com Participants in Denver's basic income program received up to $1,000 a month. They became more housing secure and landed full-time jobs.

Weird how that keeps happening. After this many trials if UBI was a drug it would already be marketed.

*side effects include reduced stress, improved sleep, and better access to economic opportunities. Talk to your doctor

Also, eating and shelter.

Point: here in a civilised country just about the lowest benefits you get from the government is $2,000. Unemployment, disability etc. They can get higher. The UBI idea is that it replaces All Other Benefits. And it is easy to see why it needs to be way higher than $1,000 1/2

I know that union economists are extremely wary. I personally am (centist (for Europe) economist. A proper UBI would be a huge part of the economy, and require a complete rethink of taxes. And it may be required soon But this example shows: Help people who need help.

oh and I looked it up "The US government's Bureau of Economic Analysis as of Q3 2023 estimates $10,007.7 billion in annual total government expenditure " $12,000 per person per year = $4,000 billion. So that would involve a 40% increase in total government expenditure. That's not insignificant.

the fact that OP is specifically talking about homelessness and the figure suggested would barely if at all cover most people's rent needs thinking about.

I agree with many of your points, but it's not fair to paint the concept of UBI as one singular idea, and especially one where "All Other Benefits" are abandoned. I think I've only seen this extreme suggested by children, right-wing libertarian nutters, and people who hate the thought of UBI, obv.

Fair enough. The reason it has been painted this way is that the sheer amount involved means that putting it on top of the current system (even in uncivilised countries) isn't really feasible (until the revolution comes and i'll probably be one of those up against the wall then in any case)

There's commonly a false binary of putting it on top of existing systems, or replacing existing systems totally. In reality it would need to replace some systems, partially replace others, and sit on top of the rest. ...and yes, taxation would also need to be restructured to match.

Bottom line for me is that partial handouts in selected cities for selected groups is unfortunately in no way a test of either type.

Wth are 'uncivilised countries?'

Countries which, while rich enough, have insufficient support for the unfortunates in society.

Have you considered the fact that forcing other people to suffer is worth an extra 600k to a lot of America?

dark and terrible facts. it pains the mind to imagine how much some Americans are willing to pay to see people suffer.

To be, is to be able to hurt people. If you can't hurt people, aren't at least able to have them hurt in your name, you yourself wink out of existence like a soap bubble. It's weaponized existentialism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ho...

Adult Content

Labeled by Bluesky Moderation Service

(Flagged for a Beaux Arts stained glass window in the Wikipedia article with an allegorical nude figure, just so you know.)

surely you believe there is more to being able to hurt others? the above is written as if dispensing hurt is the height of self-realization. perhaps there is more you could say?

For a lot of people, it is. Perhaps neither you, nor I, but enough to make this a vale of tears. Homo homini lupus.

They’d not only stay in Omelas, they’d push more kids into the hole to see if that was even more fun

s/o to Ursula K. Le Guin!

Who will we blame for all social ills if they're not on the street? (Please, I know who)

There’s a candidate on the ballot whose pitch is literally nothing but hurting people the red hats don’t like.

The most upsetting and true thing I have read in a while.

gonna need a few more of these to really see if it’s worth it

yeah, do all of them. we need a large sample size.

There have been successful pilots of basic income across the world, but they don't seem to get rolled out: theconversation.com/three-reason...

Three reasons universal basic income pilots haven’t led to policy change – despite their successtheconversation.com Challenges in evidence, long-term planning and public understanding mean that universal basic income has become easier said than done.

every single time thew results of one of these is shown the success is presented like a surprise

Americans are way too selfish to pass this sort of thing nationwide. As it is the GOP wants to end or cut aid that goes to the poor and un-housed and is not funding low income housing at all.

This has been done at least a dozen times across the globe. It is the same result. Every time. And the response, every time is "i dunno we gotta make SURE it'll scale up and be worth it", when *no other fucking economic plan is evaluated that way*.

... ah my bad you were being sarcastic and mocking the people that think that way, sorry.

indeed i was, but thx for circling back :)

every single time thew results of one of these is shown the success is presented like a surprise

But somebody might have spent some amount of that money unwisely! It's obviously a complete failure!

Abject moral turpitude, obvs.

Yeah the fact that some of the people on the trial didn't secure housing and still had poor outcomes means they will continue to try to filter to avoid 'waste' despite the fact they are saving money regardless. They'd rather help nobody than help some 😡

UBI has been the answer all along, who knew.

It’s almost like every one of the 1,340,450,560 “experiments” they’ve done, which show the exact same positive results, should just get a tiny bit more evidence before we finally accept that a UBI raises all boats.

And every single time they act so surprised "can't believe it worked!"

Any of the hand-wringing I've seen about this one seems focused on the "control group" that were paid $50/m also did better. (at about 48% vs 51%) Ignoring any non-sequiturs about other cities, I mean.

No no I think we need to write 50 more articles about how much this works, just to be sure

Wild how a housing first approach can help all the other stuff improve

They gave money to people who would then spend that money in their communities thereby boosting their economies. I would say that was a win all the way around.

In the England our government trashes their tents and throws all their belongings in a skip. Now they want to fine them £2000 for sleeping on the streets. England is a fucked up shit hole, due entirely to our caring compassionate government.

That's most of America, too. Just occasionally we have a study to show there's a better way before completely ignoring it and saying "fuck the poor"

About to be a supreme court decision on how much violence cities are allowed to do to unhoused residents. Maybe even this week! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of...

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson - Wikipediaen.m.wikipedia.org

I have full faith in our legal system to do what's right I'm also in the market for a bridge if anyone's selling

You're not allowed to sleep under it any more than the rich people are.

That's one precedent that gets 9 votes every time

Also I can't read the name of the city without thinking "Grass Pants" I would have said it like that out loud to the judge (I'd be shocked if, in all the hours of litigation that has gone into this, somebody hasn't said it in open court)

Post