876
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
  • A guaranteed-basic-income program in Austin gave people $1,000 a month for a year.
  • Most of the participants spent the no-strings-attached cash on housing, a study found.
  • Participants who said they could afford a balanced meal also increased by 17%.

A guaranteed-basic-income plan in one of Texas' largest cities reduced rates of housing insecurity. But some Texas lawmakers are not happy.

Austin was the first city in Texas to launch a tax-payer-funded guaranteed-income program when the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot kicked off in May 2022. The program served 135 low-income families, each receiving $1,000 monthly. Funding for 85 families came from the City of Austin, while philanthropic donations funded the other 50.

The program was billed as a means to boost people out of poverty and help them afford housing. "We know that if we trust people to make the right decisions for themselves and their families, it leads to better outcomes," the city says on its website. "It leads to better jobs, increased savings, food security, housing security."

While the program ended in August 2023, a new study from the Urban Institute, a Washington, DC, think tank, found that the city's program did, in fact, help its participants pay for housing and food. On average, program participants reported spending more than half of the cash they received on housing, the report said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

To all the people saying "hur dur it's just giving money to landlords":

  1. No it's not. People who would not have had housing were able to have it. If you think that's a bad thing because some landlords got paid in the process, you seriously need to have your moral compass checked.

  2. To those explicitly linking this to the idea (which is often cited but never backed up with evidence) that landlords (and mysteriously no other segment of the economy) will medically capture 110% of the value of any possible UBI program: This is not the evidence you've been lacking. The money wasn't given to everyone as it would be in a universal basic income program. It was given to people who were struggling. Of fucking course people who were homeless or near homeless spent the money on rent. The fact that people who become able to afford housing mostly choose to spend their money on housing just tells you how much people value having a place to live. It says nothing about how money would flow in a full scale system.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 7 points 11 months ago

If it proofs anything its that when the poor are given free money people prioritize having a stable, healthy lifestyle.

Should be pretty standard if they want a society worth of peoples contributions.

[-] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 11 months ago

Has your rent gone up, ever? Thats what's gonna happen with a UBI. Your landleech thinks you can pay more, so he can charge more.

Meanwhile government (nationalized) housing programs actually work and are cost efficient.

[-] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Rent went up 7 percent this year across my state, and it's already out of control to the point people are paying 4500 a month for a tiny one bedroom in the main city.

Don't think everyone getting a thousand extra bucks is going to change that drastically. And anyway, if landlords do do that, put in a rent cap in addition.

[-] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Then your bills will rise instead. Whoever can cash in - will do so. It is extremely naive to think it won't become a wealth transfer from the state (taxpayers) to the rich and corpos, like corporate welfare.

Rent price caps are something, but stopgaps aren't what we should aim for.

You seem to willingly not wrap your head around the fact I'm not berating UBI because I prioritize the economy over the people like a conservative, fearmongering about inflation etc., but because UBI is prioritizing the economy over the people itself by rejecting the far more effective solution of nationalizing necessities (e.g. housing, utilities) and cutting out the profiteering middle men entirely instead of paying them on the grounds that it's scary socialism.

Market solutions don't work on problems that are inherent to capitalism. I wish you could see that.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Has your rent gone up, ever? Thats what's gonna happen with a UBI.

You haven't said anything to establish a connection between your question and your statement. You're using the structure of a rational argument but your only evidence is "trust me bro". Fuck that and fuck you for trying to use sophistry.

[-] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago

My evidence is supply and demand, if it works, then that is what will happen with UBI. Market based solutions do not work for problems inherent to capitalism itself.

this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
876 points (98.6% liked)

News

23655 readers
5158 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS