• MangoCats@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Rent by the hour does tend to be more expensive…

    Taking a tangent: with reliable UBI the homeless and poor would have enough of their own money to reliably pay for whatever type of shelter they desire, whether that’s a standard apartment, or a bed in a big shelter dormitory for less per night, but either way: they would have a reliable source of income to pay for it with, instead of having to scrounge needs-tested welfare + whatever else they can scrape together.

    • Armand1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It may also be cheaper for the government as they wouldn’t need to spend so much on bureaucracy trying to figure out whether someone deserves money.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        All in all UBI would be a huge win, the poor could do more with a STABLE small income than they do with the unreliable sources most of them operate off of now. The whole needs testing bureaucracy can just die, saving Billions in administrative costs. Services and stores for low income people could do much better when their clientele has reliable income instead of being flat broke most of the time.

        In my view, if UBI is good enough, there’s no more need for minimum wage, let people volunteer if they want to, pay to work in some highly desirable jobs, that’s fine.

        I believe the primary objection comes from the people who hire the poor, they can’t imagine people working without the imminent threat of starvation and homelessness. If that’s how your workplace operates, that needs to change. With UBI I believe a lot of workplaces would self-regulate better, because if they don’t their employees will just quit.