A federal UBI would solve this problem. If we all know with absolute certainty how much money every one of us has access to we would no longer be vulnerable to claims of helplessness by people with signs asking for help. If I know the panhandler on the street corner is getting $1000/month and there are apartments for rent in El Paso texas for $250/mo I won't be as likely to say "They don't have any other options but to ask for handouts at this corner" Because once a UBI is in place we know they have other options.
I would argue that funding and properly funding the federal housing and urban development department would solve this issue. We act like homelessness is inevitable but it's not. In fact, in many other countries it's very unusual to see homelessness. We have an entire department set up to manage and provide low income housing. We just don't fund it. In fact, we actively underfunded. We certainly don't do very well in building new units. We allow crime and landlord abuse and unsafe housing conditions to flourish in low income in subsidized housing. Then we bitch and moan about how homelessness increases crime and how violence keeps going...
A lot of people don't know that when housing projects were first built, they were actually really nice and desirable. They were communities. But when you have decades of no upkeep, unsafe conditions (lead contamination, broken elevators, no lights or security measures in vulnerable places, vermin and insects, landlords who repeatedly violate code) - is it any wonder that these places have deteriorated and created more crises?
And we pretty much treat most crucial government departments in this way on both a state and federal level. Foster care is underfunded, criminal defense is underfunded, housing is underfunded, pollution control is underfunded, enforcement of housing codes is underfunded, welfare and food stamps and workers comp, mental health, public health... It just goes on and on.
With no safety net, no wonder people fall through so often
All of this is too convoluted. Just give people money and let them spend it as they wish. If someone wants to live in their parents basement they should still get the same benefits as everyone else. We have too many intellectuals who believe they should decide what other people need or want. You and I have no idea what some random person needs or wants. Just give people money. If they blow it then so be it. We can't save every human being on earth from making poor decisions and the more we try the more we interfere with general human flourishing and prosperity.
A better plan would be housing and food vouchers given to everyone. You would end up with higher taxes but the voucher would cover it until you make a high enough amount. Basically the more you make the less "free" money you get when you factor in taxes. All the issues people point out as flaws of these plans can be addressed, we just have to actually think about them rather than reject the idea before it can be adjusted. The issue is nobody wants to put in the work to think critically about anything. They just repeat stuff they heard elsewhere.
So if an adult lives with their parents and grows their own food they don't get any benefits? This is the problem. Not everyone needs the same things. If we give everyone cash it ensures that people are treated fairly.
Cash can be spent on things that are not basic essentials (housing food etc...). Part of the system could be cash payments, but ideally you are trying to avoid situations where people can blow all their money on drugs or whatever and be in the same position. The key part is having a real discussion about the concerns and addressing them rather than throwing the whole idea out.
Landlords would just gobble up any UBI. Everyone has an extra 1000 bucks/month in their pocket? Badaboom rent goes up 900 dollars.
The issues are structural. I'm not against UBI, depending on how it's funded (ie whether its truly redistributive), but just injecting more money into the system doesn't change how it functions.
We could have a UBI with what we're currently spending on social security. Turns out like half of social security spend is just giving people cushy retirements instead of its original anti-poverty purpose.
If we all know that on the 1st business day of every month $1000 gets deposited into every Americans checking account, and you see someone on the corner on August 3rd with a sign that says "I need money for food" wouldn't you want to ask them "what did you do with the $1000 you got two days ago?"
That is why you do vouchers like food stamps but for everyone. This is a problem easily solved just put in some mental work to think it through. You could do housing vouchers as well.
I literally would not care what they did with it if it is MY individual choice to even pay attention or entertain the thought of giving them money. Hilarious how you're feeling victimized yourself because your eyeballs have to take it someone flying a sign for 5 seconds out of your day.
Also 1000 is a pittance to live off of. Quads cost 650 at least now. Groceries are anywhere from 50-90 dollars a week. Can't afford to get a car, and a bus pass is 50 dollars. Assuming they can work 32 hours a week at minimum wage would make a big difference, but housing and bills still eat into essentially half of their total income even with work, which is where we are all getting screwed anyway.
I am not against a UBI with heavy business regulation. I think it WOULD help a lot of folks and probably keep them from needing to fly signs but putting it in the way where someone with a home and money is being made vulnerable by a cardboard sign is still laughable.
Fundamentally, the homelessness problem is a shortage of homes. If there are more people than there are homes, it doesn’t matter how much money you have, someone is going to be without one.
We can argue about why there is a mismatch between the population and homes, and I think there are probably many reasons going into it, but any solution focused on the people rather than the homes isn’t likely to solve anything. The people aren’t the problem.
If you think giving the homeless money will solve this, I’ll ask this: what housing do you expect them to rent?
There is not a shortage of homes. This is a contrived fallacy created by the YIMBY movement and real estate lobby. The truth is we have too many people who feel like they are entitled to live wherever they want for whatever price they can afford. I would love to live on the beach in Hawaii, but I can't afford it. I could claim that there is a shortage of homes on the beach in Hawaii, but thats not an accurate description of what is actually the root cause of the grievance here.
This doesn’t pass the smell test to me. That makes sense if homelessness was only a problem in a few places. It’s not. It’s happening everywhere. Eugene and Portland may be worse than average but I promise you it’s all over the place.
Where do you propose sending these homeless that they can suddenly have available homes?
Property lines are whats causing this issue, we are no longer in an era where you can keep pushing undesirables further west.
To answer your question, there are more houses than homeless. But they are all in the Midwest/East. However, these places are still too expensive for people who have nothing.
Here is an apartment complex in El Paso that has listings for under $200/mo. There are places like this all over the US. If everyone had $1000/mo there is no reason why a homeless perfon would prefer to live in a tent in soggy Washington/Jeffferson park all winter when they can rent an apartment in Texas and still have $800 left over. The only reason they might choose Eugene would be because we let them get high and stabby while Texas doesn't put upwith that crap.
Just for a little education on what you just listed -
El Paso Texas has a problem where they manipulate migrant workers and border hoppers so they post these kinds of adds that say 70 dollars a month! 145 dollars a month! Which they mean that is the first months deposit on their 900 dollar single bedroom apartment that 4 people are going to live in.
Um, you didn’t actually read that listing, did you? If you did, you’d see that the cheapest apartment they have available is $805. $1000/mo won’t make that livable.
God damn dude, at least read your fucking links before you use them as evidence for your dumb theories. Bet you felt pretty fucking proud of yourself for finding that link.
4
u/warrenfgerald Aug 04 '22
A federal UBI would solve this problem. If we all know with absolute certainty how much money every one of us has access to we would no longer be vulnerable to claims of helplessness by people with signs asking for help. If I know the panhandler on the street corner is getting $1000/month and there are apartments for rent in El Paso texas for $250/mo I won't be as likely to say "They don't have any other options but to ask for handouts at this corner" Because once a UBI is in place we know they have other options.