Moving Forward on Basic Income

Just because someone isn't going to lose their "job" (BI), what's to say it will end up in the landlord's hand? They can still default on payments. I wonder if signing over all/some of the BI to the landlord so it goes direct could be a good upgrade. It comes with the creditworthiness of the state (in california that is less than 100% mind you).

Thoughts on the risk of someone not paying their BI to the landlord?

It comes down to how much Basic Income one can expect to collect. I don't consider myself extraordinarily lazy, and thus do my part working to earn a comfortable living. Really though I'm the type who hasn't found my "dream job", so working 9-5, 40 hour weeks, is something I don't particularly enjoy, and it sucks the life out of me.

Existing social assistance where I am doesn't even cover the cheapest rent in the city, requiring you to live with at least two others who are also on welfare in a studio apartment that deserves to be condemned as being unsuitable for human habitation. So long as "basic income" means bottom-of-the-barrel minimum income that requires you to rent in the slums with roommates, while barely having enough money to eat... I will remain employed. If "basic income" ever provides more than that, I could see myself being tempted into joining the ranks. Particularly if you are allowed to keep income from a part-time minimum wage job without any clawbacks to the basic income.

The system does currently say "tough shit" once resources have been exhausted. They just come in a bunch of different forms, and are sometimes incredibly difficult to deal with. I got somewhat involved in activism and support work for homeless folks a few years ago, and it was eye-opening. So many of the chronically homeless are mentally ill; and so many of them find it impossible to navigate the system to receive benefits because of their mental illness. The process is horrifically complex; when I tried to help folks get through it, I also occasionally found it impossible to figure out which benefits someone qualified for and how to apply for them. This was especially problematic for people who'd been kicked out of their family home as a teenager, due to being gay or other conflicts, and had never had a government-issued ID.

So, I've come around to a basic income, especially for the people who have the hardest time making it through each month. The people I know who have had success getting out of homelessness did so only after they had some sort of steady income (whether that was a part-time job, or getting some sort of cash benefit from the state). Almost every person I've worked with had been through the system a few times; they'd been provided housing one or more times, but had lost it due to being unable to keep up with the requirements (regular paperwork, office visits, etc.). They'd had food stamps occasionally, but also found it hard to keep on top of the process to continue the service or restart it after having found some short-term employment that disqualified them.

Honestly, the more I've interacted with the current support services in place, the more confident I am saying that it has the opposite of its intended consequence. I think it further entrenches people in cycles of poverty. And, not because of the bullshit GOP rhetoric about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps or whatever. It didn't take long for me to realize that if there is no support infrastructure for the most in need, it is equivalent to saying, "If they can't support themselves, they should just die." because that's what happens when people completely fall through the cracks of the current system, which happens more than most people realize.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that you're arguing in support of keeping a system that doesn't exist. There's already a point where the system says, "Fuck off and die." And, from what research I've seen, and from what I've experienced among the handful of people I've been around as they've gotten out of homelessness and began to be members of society on an equal footing again, is that the most sure-fire way to help someone out of poverty is to insure they have a steady income that they can plan their life around. Mysterious and arbitrary benefits increase the uncertainty of being in poverty; not knowing if you'll still have food next month, or not knowing if any given medical problem will be covered, leads to lots of sub-optimal decision-making.

Basic Income won't solve everything; mental illness is terrible and often untreatable, addiction is a tough problem, etc. But, of all the options, I'm reasonably confident it's the least damaging.

> But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all their money and now can't afford rent and/or food? Do you tell them "tough shit, you've exhausted all your social safety nets" or are there safety nets below BI, essentially recreating the welfare programs previously destroyed? If so, how do you prevent fraud without a department following up on Joe's twelfth "my car broke down" case of the year?

I think you're comparing BI to a different standard than the existing programs.

The question isn't "Is BI perfect?", but rather "Is BI better than what we have today?"

The exact scenario you laid out can easily happen with the various programs that exist today. If BI reduces (but not eliminates) those scenarios, that would be a worthwhile improvement.

I wonder if you could get some interesting data about macro effects by giving BI to a whole neighborhood within Oakland, preferably one that historically has had low levels of migration and shops locally. Instead of sampling randomly from the population of Oakland, universally give everyone within a neighborhood basic income (or run a parallel study doing so).

That'd answer some of the biggest questions I have about BI. What happens to rents & housing prices when everyone has an extra $X to spend? What happens to prices in neighborhood shops? To what degree are people willing to travel to avoid high prices? What happens to the social fabric when everyone is richer? Do people engage more with their community when they don't have to worry about basic financial survival? Or do they isolate themselves and enjoy their new toys? If people choose not to work, what else do they spend their time doing, and how does that effect the community?

At the very least, you'd get some really great data about elasticity of rents, housing prices, and local goods which I bet economists would love to have.