856
submitted 1 year ago by zephyreks@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Aidinthel@reddthat.com 141 points 1 year ago

Every single study on UBI finds that it is a good idea that benefits both the recipients and society as a whole, but because it contradicts the dominant ideology it can't be allowed to happen.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 year ago

How can a society built on capital work towards the betterment of society rather than the accretion of capital?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There was a UBI experiment in canada that was a huge success and of course the tories axed it as soon as they had the chance. Conservatives need to [extremely long bleep] ... [yeah still bleeping] ... ... [still going] ... [leeeeep] -yeah i'm going to have to redact this in post.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 8 points 1 year ago

I've yet to see a study at a scale large enough to impact the local economy. Will the results hold when everyone gets monthly cash payments, or will rent go through the roof and that's about it?

[-] chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

Kind of a weird argument, isn't it? If we did the opposite instead, it's not as if you'd expect rents to fall -- on the contrary, rent would go up in response to the added financial burden on landlords. Setting that hypothetical aside, wouldn't a generalized inflation of rents be an acceptable tradeoff for reducing homelessness and untethering the 50+% of young adults who still live with their parents to move and work in more economically efficient environments?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 47 points 1 year ago
[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

UBI is socialism? Without any price caps on goods and services it just gives capitalists another excuse to raise prices.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

That isnt socialism, the proletariat doesn't control the means of production.

[-] comrade_pibb@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

Love too go down to the government store and order an extra large socialism

[-] StalinForTime@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

Yh a lot of mfers on this site need to actually read some theory.

[-] s1ndr0m3@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I think you are confusing socialism with communism.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago

Rent is only high because of artificial scarcity of real estate. The scarcity only exists because building new housing is decided neither by supply and demand nor central government planning, but by the people who accumulate more capital if housing isn't built.

[-] lastinsaneman@lemmy.wtf 15 points 1 year ago

We really need to push for the feds to step in and start constructing government housing against the will of the NIMBYs and local and state governments then.

California has finally started forcing local governments to build more housing to stop the NIMBYs bit it's still going to take so many years for housing to catch up even if they start now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] saigot@lemmy.ca 37 points 1 year ago

1K a month is pretty trivial compared to the cost of all the public money used to punish them (e.g cops). Even if you don't care about the humanity aspect at all UBI makes sense just from a pure numbers perspective.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Wage_slave@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

OK, so you're telling me that giving money to people who need it, is better than giving it to rich people?

I am Wage Slaves inner shocked pikachu. Same thing, just more sarcastic and massive eye brows.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 19 points 1 year ago

The cruelty is the point, so this isn't likely to be expanded. capitalist-laugh

[-] berrytopylus@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

To be clear here, while they advocate for UBI this isn't really a study on the topic as much as it is on direct cash payments to the homeless. Which has been supported by tons of different research in Canada, London, so many places I can't even remember them all.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

People without money mostly need money.

Somehow this is surprising and confusing... primarily to people who cannot imagine change.

[-] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Those damn homeless and injuns get EVERYTHING for free"

-my racist and jaded ass coworker

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Wow.

Can’t wait for this to never roll out nationwide at the Federal level.

[-] TheyKeepOnRising@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I think my biggest problem with these tests (not the idea of UBI) is that they go entirely based on what the recipients say. There's not really any indication that fact checking is done to confirm they actually are living somewhere now, or they did get their cars fixed, etc.

I'm confident that the money helped, because obviously it would, but I wish we could get some actual solid data on how much it helped. The cynic in me believes that desperate people getting 1000$/mo will embellish how much it helps in order to keep getting the money, when in reality they need 1500$ or 2000$ to afford housing in Denver.

[-] usrtrv@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure what definition of UBI you're using, but not all forms of UBI need to cover the entirety of living expenses. UBI is just having income without strings attached. This very study is showing that even small amounts of money can help people get out of shitty situations.

Also as someone who lives in Dever, it's not that expensive. Sure $1500+ is what you'll pay around LoDo, but there are plenty of cheaper places.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] iByteABit@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

I'd love to show this to people who say "but lazy people will be getting paid for nothing" or "competition is human nature" that capitalists made the fuck up, but it'll probably go over their heads, or they'll conveniently say that the test was not done properly

[-] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

the Pew Charitable Trust wrote in a recent analysis that research had "consistently found that homelessness in an area is driven by housing costs."

Well, yeah, and we can thank investors, landlords and capital funds for that. Housing in Denver is ridiculously expensive currently... and it was bad but not to this extent a few years ago. A house next door to me that was $250k and $1000 a month a few years ago is now $450 and $2100 a month.

[-] daellat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Houses in the Netherlands have increased on average like 33% since 2018. Not made up numbers. They've gotta go down this is so unaffordable for starters.

[-] Bluehood380@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

“No shit”

[-] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Poverty is a lack of money, that's it. Tax the rich, help the poor, grow the middle class.

[-] finickydesert@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I wonder if rent would go up if ubi became a thing

[-] trailing9@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

That depends on the housing market. If you have a surplus in housing, rent will remain stable because tenants will move if their landlord increases rent.

If you have a deficit in housing and more people look for a place to stay than there are available places, then tenants cannot move. Landlords and other businesses in deficit markets like healthcare will take all additional income.

[-] bigboopballs@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

The Maoist uprising against the landlords was the most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, leading to almost totally equal redistribution of the land amongst the peasantry.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
856 points (96.9% liked)

World News

32282 readers
660 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS