Recent searches
Search options
Preliminary results from the Denver Basic Income Project that's providing cash to hundreds of unhoused people for one year, using the first 6 months of data:
• NO ONE receiving $1,000/mo still sleeping outside
• Full-time employment increased
• Fewer visits to the ER
• Fewer nights spent in jail
• Reduced use of social and public services
Read the full report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gqtOfZG2sSanWgUdzn-lx-pwSXZKabj-/view?pli=1
@scottsantens In other words basic income saves money and it's really too bad that so many refuse to believe that.
@CodieneC @scottsantens oh they might believe it, they just don't want THOSE PEOPLE getting anything for "free". Even if we all have to pay more otherwise.
@CodieneC @scottsantens work makes you free 
apparently
Seriously though this is encouraging. More practical data and will start to convince the most practical part of society.
Too much hate and cruelty in their hearts to understand that. When we all do well, we all do well. Most of them are living in a poverty of spirit.
@scottsantens FYI, for anyone watching this with interest, this is normal. UBI works in every study conducted -- even the ones that were cancelled part of their way through the planned study period saw dramatic improvements by nearly every measure. Better mental health, less conflict with the law, more employment, lower cost of social services, etc. And those that didn't seek employment contributed back in other ways - most often providing care for children, elders, or disabled family members.
@scottsantens The frustrating thing is none of this is surprising. Giving the money directly to the people does two things:
1. It doesn't punish the unhoused people for the "sin" of being poor, and so those who base their personalities on being better than others have one less group to look down on.
2. The money comes out of budgets of departments and businesses that it replaces, and they don't want to lose it.
We know this solution solves a problem, but not the one those in charge want solved.
@scottsantens
#UBI seems like a really good idea. 
@scottsantens God forbid we engage in preventive measures.
@scottsantens Was just talking to my(moderate) brother about this. Mostly to be sure he knew Andrew Yang didn't make it up.
@scottsantens @Jorsh Now that this is (yet again) clear, I look forward to the “fiscally conservative” embracing this aggressively.
What's the housing stock situation like in Denver? A scarcity, or are there enough available units to absorb the need?
@chargrille @scottsantens 21K vacant apartments vs 9K homeless. This is true in every city in the US.
https://denverite.com/2023/07/24/metro-denver-point-in-time-count-homeless-count-2023/
@AdrianRiskin @chargrille @scottsantens Could a massive “unoccupancy tax” help this? In lock step with a ban on STR’s in unoccupied residencies?
@Stoneycase @chargrille @scottsantens I don't know if taxing would work but if using it weren't contrary to the main function of municipalities, which is robbing the poor to give to the rich, eminent domain would fix things right up.
@AdrianRiskin @chargrille @scottsantens and that's why eminent domain is bullshit when it involves taking from the wealthy to give to the not so.
@AdrianRiskin @chargrille @scottsantens @blogdiva I just learned Toronto implemented a very successful policy for this problem: a vacant home tax
@scottsantens It's so damned much cheaper to just give people money. UBI would be a cheap government policy, really.
@darwinwoodka @scottsantens like it's cheaper just to pay for every kids' lunch rather than paying people to monitor payments.
@scottsantens
Agrees with the Dauphin MB MINCOME results.
@scottsantens Very interesting. "Housing first" models would be in a similar space.
@scottsantens thanks for this
@scottsantens
Huh… Portland/Multnomah County have millions (maybe even $100,000,000 - 9 zeros right?) and they cant for the life of any of them figure out how to spend it to help unhoused folx 
#DenverGettingItRight
#Unhoused
#StopUnhousedByHousing!
#PDX
#PDXDoesNotGetIt
@scottsantens Seems that a communal good is helpful for the community, who knew? Ah but that's communist thinking, better to hoard the wealth among those who "earned" it.
has anyone studying #UBI has considered the possibility of payday-lender style exploitation once this is rolled out to a large population? i can imagine desperate/hopeful people getting a lump sum loan with extortionate rates, backed by collateralized or garnished future UBI payments, which would make it a tool for oppression not liberation
I hope policymakers will make it illegal to use future UBI like that, but haven’t heard anyone mention this scenario yet
@alexch @scottsantens @ReimanSaara
I worry about that. With just a small group, mass exploitation has little chance of popping up.
With universality, your landlord, any service provider, or just someone who’s help you need, is fully aware of your income stream and can try to lay claim to a portion of it in perpetuity. UBI gives you something to negotiate with, but doesn’t prevent desperation.
@alexch @scottsantens @ReimanSaara
I don’t see an obvious way to prevent that exploitation with our current systems or UBI precepts. Rent is a claim to future income, so is a loan payment, and I think we want those. How to carve off the exploitation without encumbering UBI?
Also, this problem already exists in the world of any regular government payment, which suggests we haven’t found a solution for this yet, and/or it should be solved independently
@jqr @scottsantens @ReimanSaara Well yeah, but I'm not talking about ending all exploitation, just plugging a loan shark loophole which targets the *exact* demographic #UBI is meant to help the most; if someone trades their future monthly draw checks for a lump sum up-front and spends it all then they won't have cash when they need it later
financial exploitation is an eternal part of the human condition, but it's still a good idea to make loan sharks, payday lenders, and bail bondsmen illegal
@scottsantens @LoganFive “Yeah, but still…”
- Republicans