865
submitted 10 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 115 points 10 months ago

Wouldn’t this lead you to postulate that the housing crisis in America is real and out of control when the money you give them goes right into housing?

Is this how they intend to fleece America? Give people a guaranteed income paid for by their tax dollars, so it can go right into government subsidized housing, owned and run by a shadow company that the politicians and their buddies just happen to be on the board of?

[-] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 70 points 10 months ago

Honestly if it means guaranteed housing(which it doesn't) then I'd be down with that. It's better than getting fleeced with no house.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 18 points 10 months ago

Congratulations, you managed to make people having a place to live sound not just bad, but sinister.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 83 points 10 months ago

I had no idea there were so many people who were against a UBI on Lemmy. I'm honestly surprised.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

There's a lot of effort to deny any previous UBI experiment as having even been done. Heck the top reply to your comment here denies this is even a UBI experiment. The line is usually the only way to do the experiment is to do it and that's the Socialisms so we can't ever know, sorry poors.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ZzyzxRoad@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago

I've been surprised and super disappointed by a lot of the views I've been seeing in Lemmy comments lately. Anti homeless, judging addiction, fairly socially conservative, buying into the whole retail theft narrative, and the worst has been the misogyny framed as "realism" or some shit.

I don't know, it's not for me.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago

It makes sense....I think the FOSS/anti-big tech world brings together a weird mix of far-left socialists and also libertarian types (hence the anti UBI sentiment)

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 15 points 10 months ago

IDK, I'm a leftist, and am skeptical about UBI because it's more of a free-market approach to solving a problems, rather than just directly solving problems. I.e. the government could just build more and better homeless housing, and expand section 8 to cover more of the cost and more people. I'm a bit afraid UBI would be used as an excuse to cut social programs, in a similar way that school vouchers are used to cut spending on education and leave families paying for what the vouchers don't cover.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago

And if everyone got this, rents would mysteriously increase by $1000 …

Fuck these landlords.

[-] Chriswild@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

For profit housing and for profit healthcare are abominations.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Rents are being driven up by illegal collaboration anyways. This just like the inflation argument against minimum wage increases. Prices going up is not an argument against giving people more money. Prices will go up anyways.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This trope is dumb and you should feel bad for repeating it. It shows a truly shocking lack of insight into even the most basic middle-school-level economic principles.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The sad thing is that high cost of housing is entirely unnecessary exploitation anyway. Just pass a law that transfers all house and land ownership into collective hands and erases all dept based on houses. I bet the vast majority of people would vote for it lol.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago

They spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing, a study found

They had to hand it straight back to greedy landlords in order not to be evicted

Sorted that headline for you, nae bother hen

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

City with an absurd income-to-rental-price spread: "We're giving you some money."

People getting the money: "This will go towards the enormous debts accrued to my landlords who keep cranking up the cost of housing."

Economists: surprised-pikachu-face. "We thought for sure they would spend it on video games and fentanyl."

[-] GhostFence@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

"Housing addiction: the next drug war." - Republicans/Capitalists

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ares35@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago

'oh, they have more money now.. time for it to be my money'

that happened with me with the covid checks. soon as those came out, rent went up--and up. those quickly disappeared but the rent increases are forever.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 24 points 10 months ago

The study didn’t give us the answer we wanted so we burned the results and cut social programs some more.

[-] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Didn't this basically happen like 10-15 years ago in Canada? I remember hearing about a similar study being shut down and the records sealed when the new conservative administration at the time came into power.

[-] tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 10 months ago

It's always "this small test just wouldn't work on a larger scale, so let's never try at all."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 24 points 10 months ago

It's a GOOD thing this ended! If they enacted this NATIONWIDE my Rent might Increase! Because it OBVIOUSLY hasn't increased at ALL since I moved in thanks to not having a UBI!

[-] bitwolf@lemmy.one 18 points 10 months ago

State Sen. Paul Bettencourt sent a letter to the state's attorney general asking him to declare a new program in Houston as unconstitutional.

Of course they call it unconstitutional. It actually helps people and the constitution says nothing about helping people. /s

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 16 points 10 months ago

When people can afford houses, they stop being homeless.... Amazing

When will humans learn to attack the problem and not the victim of the problem?

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Let’s find out if they can continue it without other states funding their existence.

*gestures to Rafael theodore Cruz at the airport

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 14 points 10 months ago

Texas didn't fund shit, Austin did. The government of Texas is actively hostile to the city of Austin.

[-] Saltblue@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

We need first universal Healthcare, education and affordable housing, otherwise the money would go to the leeches(landlords,insurance, student debt).

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

There are two types of UBI supporters- Those that want UBI on top of the targeted welfare program, and those that want UBI to replace targeted welfare programs. If UBI was ever implemented, which kind of UBI supporter do you think the republicans and moderate dems would be?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] JustMy2c@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

Thatchers plan would have worked if and only when:

LAND IS PROVIDED FOR NEW PROJECTS (destination plan on national provincial and local level)

ALL INCOME FROM RENT TO BUY (or similar) IS SPEND ON NEW PROJECTS

ALL PROJECTS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE BUILDER (no excess costs for any reason : sign your profitable contract but then you are obliged to deliver exactly what is promised or you'll never get another gov project again)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
865 points (98.5% liked)

News

23422 readers
2790 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