People are focusing on housing, but a country of subsidized housing and scarce jobs would still be a pretty sad place. Jobs seem like the real issue to me.
People are focusing on housing, but a country of subsidized housing and scarce jobs would still be a pretty sad place. Jobs seem like the real issue to me.
Within a week they'll have you at one of these jobs and your new boss will be genuinely surprised when you actually show up, "you have no idea how many people just never show up and only apply because somebody forces them to. If you can consistently come into work we'll hire you full time."
If you can actually show up you can get a job. It won't be your dream job but it will be a job and they'll be thankful to have you. So why do we need the government involved in this?
(BTW before anybody tells me I'm wrong, the above is from my personal experience.)
How regressive of you!
The first stage is where you're staying with friends and family for variable periods. Couchsurfing, attics, garages that sort of thing. You probably still work but can't afford the security deposit and first and last months rent. Maybe you can't even afford rent. You probably lost your house because of a relationship breakup, an eviction from income disruption, etc.
Stage two is where those options are exhausted and you're living in your car. You are probably still employed. Sometimes you may park that car with someone you know but as time goes on you'll be parking in parking lots and on the streets. You may suffer break ins, run-ins with the law, etc. At some point that car will break down and you will lose your job because of it. The car is staying where it is until the city impounds it.
Stage three is the first stage people notice. You're living on the street because you've lost your car. In places like NYC the homeless may seek shelter at night on the Subway. This leads to a lot of "homelessness crimes" like loitering, turnstile jumping and traspassing.
Stage four is where this life has taken its toll. You probably have mental health issues, drug dependency issues (initially from self-medication), etc.
So stage three is where many think homelessness starts. They may still be able to work but this becomees increasingly difficult without access to a car and a permanent address. You might even use a Planet Fitness or YMCA to keep clean still. But housing security began long before someone gets to this point.
And in all but the last stage, simply giving someone housing will solve their problems most of the time. As time goes on you may require other intervention such as mental health treatment, social work and treatment for substance abuse.
But unfortunately a lot of this gets criminalized, which both costs money and makes it more difficult for someone to recover, having a criminal record.
We live in a world where we'd rather spend a lot of money militarizing people to harass homeless people and on prisons to house them when we can spend a whole lot less just giving people somewhere to live.
By stage 4 it is pretty much over, we failed as a society and that person is probably never going to be a productive member of society again. We should be throwing all of our resources at the previous stages, rather than sinking 99% of them into stage 4 ensuring that we just let more people slip into it because we didn’t devote enough resources to the earlier stages.
Like the US Military? Do you mean we should get some of the old anti-black laws on the books outlawing being unemployed?
> allocate them to something useful, possibly at cost.
I don't think the average person is ok with the government spending $5 to has a task done that will immediately require spending $20 to undo it and another $25 for somebody to do it correctly. People can do negative work. There's often a reason the private sector has passed over people for employment.
> a country of subsidized housing and scarce jobs would still be a pretty sad place
I don't think that would happen. There's a reason Amazon wanted to build HQ2 at NYC & NOVA; there's a ton of people here that could work for them. While people move for jobs; people also build factories/office parks where they can employ people.
Although it could be the case that people taking subsidized housing don't have the skill set Amazon is looking for so there may be a limit to what job opportunities they have in the nearby area. And of course Amazon isn't interested in running a training program into SWE when they can just hire people who paid for it themselves (college).
> outlawing being unemployed?
Didn't read what I wrote.
> There's often a reason the private sector has passed over people for employment.
Yes: because they could hire someone overseas for cheaper, or because the work in question would benefit society but the benefit would be hard for the business to capture, and other such good reasons.
> I don't think the average person is ok with the government spending $5
The average person would be so happy to not be under threat of unemployment anymore that they'd be ok with the government spending $5. The rich person, on the other hand.
Unfortunately well-meaning people will insist on creating bureaucratic roadblocks in this program ostensibly for the benifit of the workers, to make sure the workers are getting benefits, safety training, etc, that have the end result of making it a job you have to apply for in advance and show up for later. And once this is done, it will be no different from the normal sort of job that some people can't hold onto because they can't bring themselves to show up reliably.
In fact we already do but the day-labor is done illegally under the table which makes it harder for low-motivation/ability people to get into. Besides, companies don't want unskilled day labor for most semi-skilled work anyway because the workers would do more damage than good, so regular jobs will still exist if irregular day labor is legalized and legitimized. For safe measure, make it illegal to refuse a day worker in Wednesday because he didn't show up on Tuesday, no implied fulltime contracts for day laborers, so companies will have to hire people on for regular jobs for work that requires training and regularity. Violations can be investigated at the government's expense, as is already the case with Department of Labor investigations.
I think I would rather these unreliable people be paid basic income to just live than to try and invent some convoluted employment scheme for them, that will ultimately 90% benefit the bureaucrats and 10% to those people and that will also inevitably balloon to 5x its intended original size.
> I'm talking about legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed day-labor, so people who can't hold down a regular job can at least easily earn irregular money whenever they find themselves able.
Doing what exactly? How would the labor discovery process work here? The only people I know who do this kind of "untaxed day labor" are semi-legal immigrants in front of home improvement stores.
> end result of making it a job you have to apply for in advance and show up for later. And once this is done, it will be no different from the normal sort of job that some people can't hold onto because they can't bring themselves to show up reliably.
Has it ever crossed your mind that reliability is a big component of gainful employment? In your example of this word salad arrangement (legalized and legitimized unorganized untaxed, whatever that means) what's stopping from a more reliable company to swoop in with their employees and starting taking this type of labor from "people who can't show up on time" ?
The sort of jobs I'm talking about are ones where you just have to get yourself to one place, a guy hands you a shovel and points at where you dig, then pays you cash at the end of the day. These jobs do exist but they aren't legal or legitimate, or if they are then you have to do paperwork and commit to a schedule to get into the tax system and compliance with government regulations. This friction keeps people who are struggling with the basics of life from working, this kind of irregular work would be much easier for people if the government removed their bureaucratic restrictions on it. Does this clarify the "word salad" for you? (BTW I don't appreciate your implication that I'm mentally ill. If you don't understand what I'm saying, it's not because I'm schizophrenic. More likely it's because you're misconstruing disagreement with confusion.)
> The average person would be so happy to not be under threat of unemployment anymore that they'd be ok with the government spending $5.
I see you neglected to address the US Military comment. Which person are you thinking of that is so suited for a job that isn't employable by the military?
You also neglected to read the second half the sentence; it's not about the government spending $5; it's about the government spending $50 of which $25 is literal wasted spending. It's literally better to just give the person $5 to do nothing over having them work.
There's the document that lists the medical disqualifications for the US military. It's 59 pages long. I was never eligible because of 6.18.d.11
Such government program could provide different jobs, not only one. People have different expectations and different abilities. Military is not for everyone.
> It's literally better to just give the person $5 to do nothing over having them work.
Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society. If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better.
> Don't do negative works then. There's a lot of jobs that are not profitable, but still provide utility to society.
Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with? How will you handle people that literally cannot understand instruction? Wish I could find the blog posts people have done on Universal Jobs where they can outline people who cannot work.
What are the goal posts here? I'm going off the initial comment of providing literally every single person that wants it a job so that they're able to afford to live. There are no points for only getting to 99% as those remaining 1% will be the RV-ers living in the parking lot.
If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great. Probably even expand them to handle the national parks or develop more land into national parks would be neat.
> If you pay $50 for nothing, or pay $50 for $10 worth job, in second case it's actually only $40 paid so much better.
This isn't the option here. It's you have say $50 and can pay somebody (in need) $5 to do something and then pay somebody (not in need) $45 to fix up the mess. Or you could just give $5 to 10 people in need to do nothing. If your goal is to make sure everybody is housed then the second option is way cheaper.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Employment_and_T...
Yes, so are for it or against it? I can't tell. Arguments like this:
> Not doing negative work isn't an option here. How will you handle people that nobody literally wants to work with?
Are matched with arguments like this:
> If we're ok with the goal posts being 99.9% than yeah sure things such as WPA [1] or CETA [2] are great.
99.9% would be a really great result. I don't believe you can actually have a solution which covers exactly 100% percent of people. People "who can't be worked with" in machining shop can be worked with for example in cleaning services. My wife manages such people. It's very hard and a lot of drama and missed spots and occasional non-showings but everyone who actually wants to work earns enough money to provide for himself. This is subsidized by Polish government, because most of those people have some form of disability which prevents them from holding "normal" jobs. And cleaning is a little cheaper. It's still better than just giving them money for sitting on their ass all day watching tv.
To quote Contact: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" They were likely given so much in tax incentives from local local and state governments that building 2 HQ2s was less than what one would have cost Amazon on its own. Furthermore, it makes sense to want to have HQs in both the Financial and Federal Government centers of the US.
Seems like society needs a surplus of both, without excess abundance of either.
But the deeper answer is that I don't believe housing is actually scarce. It's just scarce in places that have jobs. Whereas in "job deserts", which might be most of the territory, housing can be quite cheap. So if the government made jobs spring up in more places, maybe housing wouldn't be a problem.
A lot of the people living on the streets can’t get jobs even when they are abundant because they have mental illness or substance abuse problems that prevent them from working at all. Sure, Seattle has a minimum wage of almost $20/hour, and plenty of jobs still go unfilled, but the guy having a fent crisis naked in front of the library isn’t going to help much (for example from my personal experience).
The ruthlessness of American capitalism intersecting with the callous self-righteousness of the Protestant work ethic has bred into American culture an ideology that would rather see the poor starve and die in the street like dogs than suffer the indignity of a system that takes so much as a penny from them to help another.
Hell, the US will simply normalize and commoditize homelessness before taking UBI seriously. Some brilliant startup will disrupt cardboard boxes and sell them as hyper-economy "nomad chic" living units. They'll do great with SV nerds who want to feel like they're really grinding it hard-core.
If America were truly a Christian nation it would be far too "socialist" for many Americans to stomach.
As a result, fewer and fewer modern Americans see any need to donate or support faith-based charities. Why should we, when the government is doing all the heavy lifting? Christian charities are practically redundant now. Of course, we are seeing some things come full-circle, as the government supports faith-based charities with subsidies, in order to reduce the size and burden of actual government-run programs and put them back into the hands of entities which have capably run them for thousands of years.
Also, you've got to differentiate between the goals and mission of a State-based entitlement vs. the goals and mission of a faith-based charity. They're worlds apart.
To me, this is just like hearing about the gender pay gap and responding by saying they should just get married and become a housewife instead.
Instead, we need to streamline the process of getting people back to work in whatever capacity they can manage, so people can decide to go back to work on a whim in their moment of lucidity and immediately see real progress and improvement. Legitimizing day labor paid in cash at the end of the day, the same day you decide to show up. If you make people apply one day the say "you start next week" a lot of people won't make it to next week and will be back in their death spiral the next day.
Surely the biggest trap that prevents people from seeking work is poverty. You can hardly even apply for most jobs if you have no fixed abode and no access to bathing facilities or clean clothes.
UBI might keep people alive but I don't believe it's a path to recovery. It'll keep people suspended right above rock bottom, not working and on drugs and booze, permanently depressed with no future ahead of them. The longer somebody stays like this, the worse off they become mentally and physically. Enabling people like this is very cruel.
More beneficial reform involves removing the friction and barriers to recovery. Make it easier for people to find work that they can cope with and grow with. Make it easier for people to get back into the cycle of fixing their own problems by removing all the bureaucratic roadblocks that make getting back to work seem like a daunting impossibility. Anything that makes it easier to work is good, anything that makes it easier to not work (including UBI) is bad. And its not all about removing bureaucracy; building out better public transit so people feel that it's easy to get themselves to a job is very important. Government initiatives that reduce the availability of used cars or raise the price of new cars (same thing) should also be eliminated. More bike lanes should be built between residential and industrial/commercial areas and ebikes should be permitted on these routes. The penalties of traffic violations should be made progressive so that rich people have to pay however much is enough to make them regret it. Across the board, the stress of transportation should be reduced to make it easier for people to turn their lives around. The stress of finding entry level jobs should be reduced, but not the importance of working because getting people back to work is how you get them on a path of recovery and growth.