Universal income for Hobos. (Portland: rental, landlord, camps)

[xPlorer48]

Originally Posted by rrampage

First of all, can you tell me how this menial income WOULDN'T likely go back into the economy? I think the onus is on the argument AGAINST, not for. We do first have to acknowledge the facts before we can move on with this discussion. Why we don't already have a minimum income for the poor is due to human stupidity, not anything we can point to in any tangible way.

I'm still waiting for viable arguments AGAINST a minimum income for the poor. I haven't seen any since this argument originally began (years ago).

Most of them would spend it on drugs and liquor. They get food stamps and/or meals brought to them, free medical or show up at ER and steal what they need or to resell. This is just a very poorly thought out idea just like student loan forgiveness and reparations.

But, go ahead Portland. I would love to see Western Washington’s derelicts move South.

[ExNooYawk2]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Easy answer - the other employees are earning their money via some sort of profit inducing behavior that benefits company enough to warrant the company seeing them as "worth it". Good for them for making whatever it is they make.



That is between them and the company. I (We) should not care at all about them. We should be caring about what we can do to improve our value to the company and thus make commensurate. Or better yet - figure out a better way to do things and start our own company.



OTOH, the hobo/vagabond stealing tax money to "not work" is a cancer on society that the productive tax paying citizen should in no way have to pay for or subsidize as this behavior weakens society in the long run.


There ya go - easy isn't it?

Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate again. Paying people not to work is anathema to most of us; maybe all of us.

But.

How much do we already spend on police, shelters, food stamps, medical care, etc. on non-working people? It could work out to be cheaper just to give them a GMI (Guaranteed Minimal Income) and let them get on with their own lives while we get on with ours. Would it be worth it not to have homeless encampments and the detritus that arises around them on sidewalks, under bridges and in public parks? How much does the ensuing cleanup cost taxpayers when they are ousted (and go somewhere else)?

Maybe we could give vouchers for certain items rather than cash to eliminate the possibility (probability?) of the money being spent on drugs. Market-rate rent based on a certain number of occupants could work.

Solutions would obviously have to be fine tuned and are beyond my capabilities at this point but maybe it isn't so crazy after all.

[sam812]

Originally Posted by ExNooYawk2

Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate again. Paying people not to work is anathema to most of us; maybe all of us.

But.

How much do we already spend on police, shelters, food stamps, medical care, etc. on non-working people? It could work out to be cheaper just to give them a GMI (Guaranteed Minimal Income) and let them get on with their own lives while we get on with ours. Would it be worth it not to have homeless encampments and the detritus that arises around them on sidewalks, under bridges and in public parks? How much does the ensuing cleanup cost taxpayers when they are ousted (and go somewhere else)?

Maybe we could give vouchers for certain items rather than cash to eliminate the possibility (probability?) of the money being spent on drugs. Market-rate rent based on a certain number of occupants could work.

Solutions would obviously have to be fine tuned and are beyond my capabilities at this point but maybe it isn't so crazy after all.

Every time I have seen any details on GMI it has been in addition to anything they already receive. Not replacing anything.

Vouchers are never the answer. They just cash in the voucher and sell the product for 50 to 60 cents on the dollar. I grew up in a slum area and that is how many got cash. They would buy high end steaks or large quantities of ground burger and sell it as soon as they walked out the door. Pretty easy to find someone to buy t-bones or ribeye steaks at half price.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by ExNooYawk2

Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate again. Paying people not to work is anathema to most of us; maybe all of us.

But.

How much do we already spend on police, shelters, food stamps, medical care, etc. on non-working people? It could work out to be cheaper just to give them a GMI (Guaranteed Minimal Income) and let them get on with their own lives while we get on with ours. Would it be worth it not to have homeless encampments and the detritus that arises around them on sidewalks, under bridges and in public parks? How much does the ensuing cleanup cost taxpayers when they are ousted (and go somewhere else)?

Maybe we could give vouchers for certain items rather than cash to eliminate the possibility (probability?) of the money being spent on drugs. Market-rate rent based on a certain number of occupants could work.

Solutions would obviously have to be fine tuned and are beyond my capabilities at this point but maybe it isn't so crazy after all.

Sure, if it were just a matter of paying them a certain amount and they would go rent homes and otherwise assimilate back into society. But a universal income very likely wouldn't mean the disappearance of homeless camps. We'd likely still spend the same amount of money on LE, shelters, cleanup, medical care, etc., and then have the additional burden of shelling out for the GMI and the layers of beaurocracy it would take to implement it. Conditions for recipients could theoretically be applied, but the ACLU would swoop in and prove them unconstitutional.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by ExNooYawk2

Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate again. Paying people not to work is anathema to most of us; maybe all of us.

But.

How much do we already spend on police, shelters, food stamps, medical care, etc. on non-working people? It could work out to be cheaper just to give them a GMI (Guaranteed Minimal Income) and let them get on with their own lives while we get on with ours. Would it be worth it not to have homeless encampments and the detritus that arises around them on sidewalks, under bridges and in public parks? How much does the ensuing cleanup cost taxpayers when they are ousted (and go somewhere else)?

Maybe we could give vouchers for certain items rather than cash to eliminate the possibility (probability?) of the money being spent on drugs. Market-rate rent based on a certain number of occupants could work.

Solutions would obviously have to be fine tuned and are beyond my capabilities at this point but maybe it isn't so crazy after all.

The weakness in your proposal is assuming the their is a finite end to any boondoggle like this. You ignore human behavior.



There are many points to be considered:
1. Giving money away cart blanche would be like feeding stray cats. "If you build it - they will come." Unfortunately a large contingent of the human population is swayed by easy short term thinking. Why do you think drug use is rampant here?


It provides a short term solution to some people and stupid west coast states in particular, not only allow it but actually condone it. Same would happen with free money. Low-life's, hobos and vagrants will show up to claim their "rights".


2. As someone stated in a previous post, any gov't program is rife with corruption and bureaucracy and will be used for political purposes. Hell the entire Democrat party platform is about getting more people hooked on government programs. This would just continue that model.



You make this statement "It could work out to be cheaper just to give them a GMI (Guaranteed Minimal Income) and let them get on with their own lives while we get on with ours. "


Nothing could be further from the truth.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by ExNooYawk2

..........

How much do we already spend on police, shelters, food stamps, medical care, etc. on non-working people? It could work out to be cheaper just to give them a GMI (Guaranteed Minimal Income) and let them get on with their own lives while we get on with ours. Would it be worth it not to have homeless encampments and the detritus that arises around them on sidewalks, under bridges and in public parks? How much does the ensuing cleanup cost taxpayers when they are ousted (and go somewhere else)?.............

If that was the way it worked, but it isn't. If you give a big chunks of money to thieves, slobs, lazy, addicts, or mentally ill, it doesn't like magic turn them into clean responsible upright citizens. They will still be thieves, slobs, lazy, addicted, or mentally ill, and the taxpayers will still have to pay for all the police and prisons, and trash clean-up. There would still be homeless camps, because even with lots of income, no one will rent an apartment to most of them because they are thieves and slobs, they live filthy, and some of them are dangerous

There are some things that can be done about a percentage of them, but none of it involves handing them more money or free stuff.

[Driver 47]

I believe this program already exists. It's called "Welfare".

[ExNooYawk2]

Originally Posted by sam812

Every time I have seen any details on GMI it has been in addition to anything they already receive. Not replacing anything.

Vouchers are never the answer. They just cash in the voucher and sell the product for 50 to 60 cents on the dollar. I grew up in a slum area and that is how many got cash. They would buy high end steaks or large quantities of ground burger and sell it as soon as they walked out the door. Pretty easy to find someone to buy t-bones or ribeye steaks at half price.

I have no doubt you are correct. But. We're not really talking about GMI where people can buy boats and beach houses. There will always be those who game the system for their own, unintended gain. But if the GMI is divided up into vouchers for housing, food, etc. there might not be enough left over for shenanigans. There could also be a proviso that you must check in EVERY MONTH and show proof you are using housing money on housing. Also, require a drug test.

I don't have all the answers but feel that the money we spend on policing all these people could be better spent. GMI may not be such a crazy idea at the end of the day.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by ExNooYawk2

I have no doubt you are correct. But. We're not really talking about GMI where people can buy boats and beach houses. There will always be those who game the system for their own, unintended gain. But if the GMI is divided up into vouchers for housing, food, etc. there might not be enough left over for shenanigans. There could also be a proviso that you must check in EVERY MONTH and show proof you are using housing money on housing. Also, require a drug test.

I don't have all the answers but feel that the money we spend on policing all these people could be better spent. GMI may not be such a crazy idea at the end of the day.

So Finland did a randomized, controlled study for UBI back in 2017-2018. They found that it didn't improve re-employment. Many, many countries as well as several states and cities have done UBI studies over the years. No one has UBI in any country at this time.

There are numerous issues with UBI and I think the main issue is that the problems with homeless are complex in the US and UBI won't solve that.

UBI doesn't solve mental health issues-adequate mental health systems do
UBI doesn't solve drug and alcohol abuse-adequate treatment facilities do
UBI can help to solve housing issues and help to keep people housed, but increasing Section 8 vouchers also can do that and that system already exists. I don't think we need another government system when one already exists.

I agree that we spend an asinine amount of money on homelessness that could be spent elsewhere that would be more preventative and I personally would prefer that as I think preventing problems as much as possible is a money saver in the long run. Politicians don't listen to me though.

I'm just not convinced that UBI is going to do what we want it to do. I grew up poor so it isn't like I don't understand what that is like.

[leastprime]

JMO,
I have no firm opinion on UBI.
yimv