Would you support a Universal Basic Income (poll)?

[jooles]

A social safety net would have positive benefit beyond the cost.  It could be measured in countries that currently have one.  Medical care, including prenatal care and pregnancy planning, mental health care, senior services, housing, food, etc.  - when basic needs are provided for and the marginalized people are no longer marginalized, but cared for, then outcomes improve.  But this country has always had an attitude of "I've got mine, you figure out how to get yours."  But that has led us to where we are now. 

[arebelspy]

It sounds like Qmavam, when (s)he says "these homeless" is referring to a specific group of people near him/her.

So perhaps they are all male.  But that doesn't mean they don't suffer.

[MoonShadow]

Homelessness in America Fact Sheet.

About 30% of people who are chronically homeless have mental health conditions and over 60% of people who are chronically homelessness have experienced lifetime mental health problems.

How is that their fault?

Re-read what you wrote there.  It's an obvious contradiction, as you have presented it.  I checked the document you presented, and even assuming that it's accurate, you have mis-quoted it....

Data from research conducted in the past five years indicates that
xi xii xiii
:
•
About 30%
 of people who are chronically homeless have mental health conditions.
•
About 50%
 have co-occurring substance use problems.
According to analyses of data from the 1996 NSHAPC
xiv
:
•
Over 60%
 of people who are chronically homelessness have experienced lifetime mental
health problems
•
Over 80%
 have experienced lifetime alcohol and/or drug problems

Look again at the dates.  By the document you provided, both mental illness & addiction have dropped in half during the last decade; as an association to homelessness.  That's great!  It also supports my position, that mental illness isn't a majority cause of homelessness, at least not any more and not in the US.

About 22% of people who are homeless are children (and 46% of them are under 6 years old).

How is that their fault?

Notably, also not a majority.  Even if one assumes that all those who are under 18 are homeless due to their parents being homeless (quite the assumption); adding mental illness to all homeless minors still only gets you to 52%.

In New York City and Philadelphia, research showed that people experiencing chronic homelessness generally have higher rates of disabilities (in comparison to people have than people who are just experiencing transitional and episodic homelessness).

How is that their fault?

Does that same research show that the disabilities are the root cause of homelessness?  That's a trick question, of course they don't.  Both NYC & Philly experience higher rates of homelessness in general, as a direct result of economic pressure.  Both cities have significant regulation upon the construction and licensing of rental properties.  I.E., rent control.

Unless you're saying these people chose to have mental health issues, chose to have disabilities, and these children chose to be on the streets, your argument is wrong.  Statistically, empirically wrong.

Try again.  Unless you don't understand what those words actually mean, and just put them there for emphasis, in which case you should probably stop doing that.  It makes you sound ignorant when you misuse words.

[arebelspy]

A social safety net would have positive benefit beyond the cost.  It could be measured in countries that currently have one.  Medical care, including prenatal care and pregnancy planning, mental health care, senior services, housing, food, etc.  - when basic needs are provided for and the marginalized people are no longer marginalized, but cared for, then outcomes improve.  But this country has always had an attitude of "I've got mine, you figure out how to get yours."  But that has led us to where we are now.

Well said.

I read a similar comment recently from an anonymous slashdot user.

The article was about how poverty lowers IQ...but only in the U.S.  It's replicated here, but not in other first world countries.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/12/22/2152209/poverty-stunts-iq-in-the-us-but-not-in-other-developed-countries

Article summary:

New research published in the journal Psychological Science (abstract) found that children who grow up in poverty within the United States tend to have lower IQs than peers from other socioeconomic brackets. Previous studies have shown a complex relationship between a child's genetics, his environment, and his IQ. Your genes can't pinpoint your IQ, but they can indicate a rough range of values within which your IQ is quite likely to fall. For kids in poverty, they seem to consistently end up on the low end of that window. Interestingly, this effect was not seen for any of the other countries hosting kids within the study, which included Australia, Germany, England, Sweden, and the Netherlands. The study authors speculate that "inequalities in educational and medical access in the U.S." may be the root of the differences, though another researcher is planning to study the effect of school environments as well.

The comment that reminded me of yours was:
"The experience of many, many other countries shows conclusively and overwhelmingly that society is better off with a good social system that supports the poor and underprivileged. It constantly amazes that Americans are SO insistent on their "every man for himself" mentality, in the face of the evidence. The countries ranked the best to live in are socialist societies, where the rich are compelled to help the poor rather than say "fuck it dude I got mine, so screw you". They have government run medical systems, and high taxes to support a well functioning society.

America has one of the biggest wealth disparities in the world, a poor education system, a health care system that is massively expensive but comes up far short of the best ones in results, has more murder, and a crumbling infrastructure. When will you all wake up and realize that your culture needs to be changed? It's OK. You can join the modern world. The rest of us will be happy to see you do well! We don't wish bad things for you. But you have to give up the cowboy attitude, in order to get there."

Big +1 to that!

[arebelspy]

Stuff.

I disagree with each of your points (for example, there's a difference between experiencing mental illness right now, and experiencing lifetime mental health problems). But if you can read those stats and not find empathy in your heart, I don't see the point in even discussing it any more. 

Take care, I wish you nothing but the best.  :)

[BTDretire]

It sounds like Qmavam, when (s)he says "these homeless" is referring to a specific group of people near him/her.

So perhaps they are all male.  But that doesn't mean they don't suffer.

That's correct, the group that hangs near, are all males.
I'd agree some suffer, but mostly from poverty, not from some major mental problem.
I talk to them as a I do my excercise walk around the marina. I only got into why not
go out and get a job with one, his answer was he has been a deck hand on a boat all his life, that's all he knows.
 There is usually beer drinking going on, but don't see it as much as I used to.
The marina put up signs about no open alcohol and it seems to have limited it.
It has happened before though, the police arrest one for alcohol and word gets around fast. 
We had one start harrassing both my wife and I, dozens of incidents, finally got him put in jail,
and got a restraining order.

Just received this in an email.

The definition of the word "conundrum" is:  something that is puzzling or confusing.

Here are six Conundrums of Socialism in the United States of America:

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

                     Have a Happy New Year!   :-)

[MoonShadow]

Stuff.

I disagree with each of your points

Disagree all you like.  I find no harm in disagreement.  Best of luck in your endeavors as well, Arebelspy, and enjoy your homeless charity work.

[LennStar]

Dont trust a statistic you havent screwed and interpretet yourself... but one pont I want to point out.

Look again at the dates.  By the document you provided, both mental illness & addiction have dropped in half during the last decade; as an association to homelessness.  That's great!

NO! Actually that is very bad. Why? Because that means that a lot of people that are not in "useless" condition are homeless, too! It is a sign that even people who are willing and able to work cannot find one, nearly a decade after the last big economy crash - and that in the US that normally is fast on the hiring and firing.

[arebelspy]

Dont trust a statistic you havent screwed and interpretet yourself... but one pont I want to point out.

Look again at the dates.  By the document you provided, both mental illness & addiction have dropped in half during the last decade; as an association to homelessness.  That's great!

NO! Actually that is very bad. Why? Because that means that a lot of people that are not in "useless" condition are homeless, too! It is a sign that even people who are willing and able to work cannot find one, nearly a decade after the last big economy crash - and that in the US that normally is fast on the hiring and firing.

Ah, but if you can blame them for their condition, then it's just their own damn fault. No big deal.  It's a not necessarily a good thing that those people are homeless, but they can fix it themselves, so no need for us to do anything!

[MoonShadow]

Dont trust a statistic you havent screwed and interpretet yourself... but one pont I want to point out.

Look again at the dates.  By the document you provided, both mental illness & addiction have dropped in half during the last decade; as an association to homelessness.  That's great!

NO! Actually that is very bad. Why? Because that means that a lot of people that are not in "useless" condition are homeless, too! It is a sign that even people who are willing and able to work cannot find one, nearly a decade after the last big economy crash - and that in the US that normally is fast on the hiring and firing.

You are making an assumption here without support.  This effect can also be explained in other ways, namely that a lot of young people are 'homeless' by deliberate decision.  Granted, I have no more data than you do; but when a 20 year old backpacks across Europe, s/he is technically homeless, even if opportunities to sleep in a youth hostel or shelter exist.  The Millennial generation is a large one, and the concept of sleeping on a couch for a few days, then going someplace else, is ingrained into them in ways that it was not in older generations.  In reality, it's likely to be some combination of those factors, as well as other factors; but I'd wager that the majority of "bums" that were commented upon by other earlier in this thread, that started this conversation, are not sleeping under a pier because they can't find a job.  I did something similar as a young man, and I highly recommend it to my own boys, much to the chagrin of my wife.  For my generation, the idea was, "Join the Navy, See the World!"; but that was in an era of relative peace, so a four or six year contract wasn't a near guarantee to see combat, as it seems to be today.  I was in the US Marine Corps, btw, which is just about as homeless as one can be with a paycheck.  The military has traditionally been the employer of last resort, after all.

The same idea can be seen in older men recommending young men seek adventures before careers, such as hiking the Appalachian trail, or sailing the Pacific Islands on an old sailboat, or surfing the beaches while sleeping on the beach.  I read the travel blog of a young man who kayaked completely around the Great Loop, just for the hell of it.  The idea of "homeless" gives us a mental picture of a person (or family) that has no permanent address or reliable income, due to personal catastrophe.  That does happen, and is quite tragic.  Those people do deserve our sympathy and support.  I'm saying that, fortunately, that is no longer the majority cause of homelessness in the United States of America; because we have become so wealthy as a society in general, that our young adult children can actually afford to delay education and/or income seeking work to pursue short term adventure & exploration.  But when they are polled on the matter, the relevant questions are "do you have a home at present?" and "do you have a reliable income?" that lead us to conclude that these young adventurers are homeless, and therefore that they are destitute.  This is, thankfully, not the case.  In many cases, if the discomforts of the adventure were to become too great, these young people could simply call Mom collect, and have a reasonable expectation that a bus ticket home would be waiting for them at the nearest bus station.

[Kris]

Dont trust a statistic you havent screwed and interpretet yourself... but one pont I want to point out.

Look again at the dates.  By the document you provided, both mental illness & addiction have dropped in half during the last decade; as an association to homelessness.  That's great!

NO! Actually that is very bad. Why? Because that means that a lot of people that are not in "useless" condition are homeless, too! It is a sign that even people who are willing and able to work cannot find one, nearly a decade after the last big economy crash - and that in the US that normally is fast on the hiring and firing.

You are making an assumption here without support.  This effect can also be explained in other ways, namely that a lot of young people are 'homeless' by deliberate decision.  Granted, I have no more data than you do; but when a 20 year old backpacks across Europe, s/he is technically homeless, even if opportunities to sleep in a youth hostel or shelter exist.  The Millennial generation is a large one, and the concept of sleeping on a couch for a few days, then going someplace else, is ingrained into them in ways that it was not in older generations.  In reality, it's likely to be some combination of those factors, as well as other factors; but I'd wager that the majority of "bums" that were commented upon by other earlier in this thread, that started this conversation, are not sleeping under a pier because they can't find a job.  I did something similar as a young man, and I highly recommend it to my own boys, much to the chagrin of my wife.  For my generation, the idea was, "Join the Navy, See the World!"; but that was in an era of relative peace, so a four or six year contract wasn't a near guarantee to see combat, as it seems to be today.  I was in the US Marine Corps, btw, which is just about as homeless as one can be with a paycheck.  The military has traditionally been the employer of last resort, after all.

The same idea can be seen in older men recommending young men seek adventures before careers, such as hiking the Appalachian trail, or sailing the Pacific Islands on an old sailboat, or surfing the beaches while sleeping on the beach.  I read the travel blog of a young man who kayaked completely around the Great Loop, just for the hell of it.  The idea of "homeless" gives us a mental picture of a person (or family) that has no permanent address or reliable income, due to personal catastrophe.  That does happen, and is quite tragic.  Those people do deserve our sympathy and support.  I'm saying that, fortunately, that is no longer the majority cause of homelessness in the United States of America; because we have become so wealthy as a society in general, that our young adult children can actually afford to delay education and/or income seeking work to pursue short term adventure & exploration.  But when they are polled on the matter, the relevant questions are "do you have a home at present?" and "do you have a reliable income?" that lead us to conclude that these young adventurers are homeless, and therefore that they are destitute.  This is, thankfully, not the case.  In many cases, if the discomforts of the adventure were to become too great, these young people could simply call Mom collect, and have a reasonable expectation that a bus ticket home would be waiting for them at the nearest bus station.

In other words: don't look at or listen to the actual research on homelessness that has been done.  My anecdotal "evidence" and gut feeling about why people are homeless is a much more reliable source.

[Kris]

Actual information on youth homelessness in the US.:

https://www.nn4youth.org/wp-content/uploads/FactSheet_Unaccompanied_Youth.pdf

[MoonShadow]

In other words: don't look at or listen to the actual research on homelessness that has been done.  My anecdotal "evidence" and gut feeling about why people are homeless is a much more reliable source.

My anecdotal evidence is no worse than your own, Kris, but at least I can recognize that my beliefs are actually beliefs.  And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

[Kris]

In other words: don't look at or listen to the actual research on homelessness that has been done.  My anecdotal "evidence" and gut feeling about why people are homeless is a much more reliable source.

My anecdotal evidence is no worse than your own, Kris, but at least I can recognize that my beliefs are actually beliefs.  And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Yes, anecdotal evidence is generally flawed -- though I would say that the anecdotes of someone who, say, works with homeless people and gets to know them might be better than someone who only, say, passes by them on the street sometimes and makes assumptions about them without really knowing for sure.  But then again, that is why I presented a link to actual information gleaned from actual research that somewhat contradicts what you have been saying, instead of relying on anecdotes and conjecture.

[arebelspy]

And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Huh?  It seems exactly like what you were talking about.

This effect can also be explained in other ways, namely that a lot of young people are 'homeless' by deliberate decision.  Granted, I have no more data than you do; but when a 20 year old backpacks across Europe, s/he is technically homeless, even if opportunities to sleep in a youth hostel or shelter exist.

[Cassie]

Arebelspy you are 100% correct about this countries homelessness.  There is a reason we have shelters for women and for families because it is not just the men that are homeless.  Some people's lack of empathy in this discussion is underwhelming.  Yes mental illness and  disability plays a large role in this problem.  It is so easy to say it is from their own poor choices because then people don't have to think about it, etc.  Really, really sad.

[MoonShadow]

And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Huh?  It seems exactly like what you were talking about.

I was talking above about young adults who are away from home for adventure, without any permanent home or income, but with the assurance that returning to their parents' home is realistically possible.  Kris posted a link to a paper concerned with unaccompanied minors who are homeless.  Basically runaways and turnouts between the ages of 12 and 17.  Apples and oranges.  It's a trick that Kris has attempted to do on many subjects; I present an opinion, she presents a counter opinion that she implies is based upon real research, and then links to something that is tangentially related, at best.  Kris remains under the illusion that her worldview is the only possible interpretation of facts, and therefore her beliefs are greater than my own.

This effect can also be explained in other ways, namely that a lot of young people are 'homeless' by deliberate decision.  Granted, I have no more data than you do; but when a 20 year old backpacks across Europe, s/he is technically homeless, even if opportunities to sleep in a youth hostel or shelter exist.

Exactly.  The article Kris linked to does not address an 18 year old backpacking across Europe for a year, before heading to Harvard.  It addresses the homeless 14 year old girl who ran away from home because her stepfather rapes her while her birth mother is passed out drunk on the front porch.  My assertion is that the prior situation is increasingly common in recent years, despite economic conditions (although still rather rare overall) while the latter is, hopefully, not increasing.

This is certainly not the only class of 'by choice' homeless adult that I referenced before, but it's increasing percentage of overall homelessness in the United States can only be considered a positive trend; unless you are a business owner who can't manage to find a 20 year old willing to work for more than 6 weeks without quitting.

The other class of 'by choice' homeless adult that I referenced earlier would be those who are homeless, not because they are not able bodied or mentally healthy, but simply because they make a chronic habit of poor life choices.  These people are a pity, to be sure; but I don't find the argument that they are as deserving of aid as a mentally ill adult, a war veteran with a missing foot, or a 6 year old with a mother addicted to alcohol to be particularly convincing.

My claim is that these two major classes of 'by choice' homeless have become a majority of homelessness in the United States.  I could have my mind changed on this matter, if the right kind of evidence were presented to me; but I don't think Kris has the research skills required, even if such data exists.

MOD EDIT: Forum rule #1.  Attack an argument, not a person

[MoonShadow]

Arebelspy you are 100% correct about this countries homelessness.  There is a reason we have shelters for women and for families because it is not just the men that are homeless.  Some people's lack of empathy in this discussion is underwhelming.  Yes mental illness and  disability plays a large role in this problem.  It is so easy to say it is from their own poor choices because then people don't have to think about it, etc.  Really, really sad.

Another lovely, but factually deficient, opinion.  I never said that mental illness or disability didn't factor into homelessness for many in this country still.  I did point out that homelessness, and poverty generally, in the United States doesn't compare to true destitution.  You'd have to travel to another country to witness such a sight, even as bad as homelessness due to mental illness or disability can be here.  Overseas, it's almost always worse, by any metric.  Everything is relative, and painting the perspectives of others as black & white, right or wrong, is a sign of emotional & intellectual immaturity.

MOD EDIT: Forum rule #1.  Attack an argument, not a person

[arebelspy]

And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Huh?  It seems exactly like what you were talking about.

I was talking above about young adults who are away from home for adventure, without any permanent home or income, but with the assurance that returning to their parents' home is realistically possible.  Kris posted a link to a paper concerned with unaccompanied minors who are homeless.  Basically runaways and turnouts between the ages of 12 and 17.  Apples and oranges. 

Because that type of homeless (traveler) is not actually homeless.

I have no home right now (perpetual traveler), but I'm not counted on any "homeless" statistic, because that's not how it works.

The backpacker across Europe doesn't stay in a homeless shelter.

She was trying to present data on the actual homeless, not on people who jokingly call themselves homeless for a few months.

My claim is that these two major classes of 'by choice' homeless have become a majority of homelessness in the United States.

Do you have any evidence to support this?  Because all of the posted links so far show nothing of the sort.  And claiming they aren't related is ridiculous--they're literally studies of America's homeless population.

[PKFFW]

Here in Australia a backpacker or any other traveler by choice with no fixed address would not be considered as part of the "homeless" population.

I  think that without any evidence supporting the claim, it is an unbelievable and farcical suggestion that any developed country would count such people as part of their "homeless" population.

[Tabaxus]

I do not think giving everyone a check for $X is a good idea, because of the mental illness and substance abuse that is prevalent among the homeless.  So I do not support a universal basic income.  I do, however, think that we should be providing services (housing, food, etc) that would essentially equal the result of a UBI, and I support the higher taxes that would be required to make that happen

[cjottawa]

Guaranteed basic income was trialed in Manitoba, Canada, in the 1970s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

From the above linked entry:

...in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse.[7] Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals.

Article of possible interest:

Andrew Coyne: Raising minimum wage won't help end poverty but giving the poor more money will

[LennStar]

I do not think giving everyone a check for $X is a good idea, because of the mental illness and substance abuse that is prevalent among the homeless.  So I do not support a universal basic income.  I do, however, think that we should be providing services (housing, food, etc) that would essentially equal the result of a UBI, and I support the higher taxes that would be required to make that happen

what last poster wrote.
Also substance abuse is more prevalent among the semi-wealthy. Not only because they can afford it, but also it is more accepted there "just take a pill and you can function a year longer with those 12 hour shifts."
Just because drug heads are often poor does not mean that most poor are drug heads.
Of course the rates differ a lot between countries and cities. So we both are right in a sense ;)

[MoonShadow]

And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Huh?  It seems exactly like what you were talking about.

I was talking above about young adults who are away from home for adventure, without any permanent home or income, but with the assurance that returning to their parents' home is realistically possible.  Kris posted a link to a paper concerned with unaccompanied minors who are homeless.  Basically runaways and turnouts between the ages of 12 and 17.  Apples and oranges. 

Because that type of homeless (traveler) is not actually homeless.

I have no home right now (perpetual traveler), but I'm not counted on any "homeless" statistic, because that's not how it works.

The backpacker across Europe doesn't stay in a homeless shelter.

She was trying to present data on the actual homeless, not on people who jokingly call themselves homeless for a few months.

My claim is that these two major classes of 'by choice' homeless have become a majority of homelessness in the United States.

Do you have any evidence to support this?  Because all of the posted links so far show nothing of the sort.  And claiming they aren't related is ridiculous--they're literally studies of America's homeless population.

That's real slick, Arebelspy. First you ban me for a comment that you would have overlooked if anyone had done it to me, then you post a comment challenging me on my opinions.  Really, anyone who was actually reading this thread would have known that I was referring to the type of "homeless bums" that sleep under piers in 85 degree weather, not the type that sleep at a homeless shelter because it's 32 degrees.  Particularly since I already mentioned that fact, twice.

[MoonShadow]

Here in Australia a backpacker or any other traveler by choice with no fixed address would not be considered as part of the "homeless" population.

I  think that without any evidence supporting the claim, it is an unbelievable and farcical suggestion that any developed country would count such people as part of their "homeless" population.

All the numbers that can be found regarding the population of homeless people in the United States are derived from polling, and is not limited to homeless shelters.  The actual numbers, which no one really knows, can vary considerably due to assumptions regarding the statistics & how the polling was performed.  Feel free to present evidence supporting the claim that, in Australia, statistics do not, accidentally or otherwise, include the voluntary homeless.  And good luck proving that negative.

[Kris]

And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Huh?  It seems exactly like what you were talking about.

I was talking above about young adults who are away from home for adventure, without any permanent home or income, but with the assurance that returning to their parents' home is realistically possible.  Kris posted a link to a paper concerned with unaccompanied minors who are homeless.  Basically runaways and turnouts between the ages of 12 and 17.  Apples and oranges. 

Because that type of homeless (traveler) is not actually homeless.

I have no home right now (perpetual traveler), but I'm not counted on any "homeless" statistic, because that's not how it works.

The backpacker across Europe doesn't stay in a homeless shelter.

She was trying to present data on the actual homeless, not on people who jokingly call themselves homeless for a few months.

My claim is that these two major classes of 'by choice' homeless have become a majority of homelessness in the United States.

Do you have any evidence to support this?  Because all of the posted links so far show nothing of the sort.  And claiming they aren't related is ridiculous--they're literally studies of America's homeless population.

That's real slick, Arebelspy. First you ban me for a comment that you would have overlooked if anyone had done it to me, then you post a comment challenging me on my opinions.  Really, anyone who was actually reading this thread would have known that I was referring to the type of "homeless bums" that sleep under piers in 85 degree weather, not the type that sleep at a homeless shelter because it's 32 degrees.  Particularly since I already mentioned that fact, twice.

Maybe you could post some links of evidence?

I mean, you know, instead of whining?

[MoonShadow]

And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Huh?  It seems exactly like what you were talking about.

I was talking above about young adults who are away from home for adventure, without any permanent home or income, but with the assurance that returning to their parents' home is realistically possible.  Kris posted a link to a paper concerned with unaccompanied minors who are homeless.  Basically runaways and turnouts between the ages of 12 and 17.  Apples and oranges. 

Because that type of homeless (traveler) is not actually homeless.

I have no home right now (perpetual traveler), but I'm not counted on any "homeless" statistic, because that's not how it works.

The backpacker across Europe doesn't stay in a homeless shelter.

She was trying to present data on the actual homeless, not on people who jokingly call themselves homeless for a few months.

My claim is that these two major classes of 'by choice' homeless have become a majority of homelessness in the United States.

Do you have any evidence to support this?  Because all of the posted links so far show nothing of the sort.  And claiming they aren't related is ridiculous--they're literally studies of America's homeless population.

That's real slick, Arebelspy. First you ban me for a comment that you would have overlooked if anyone had done it to me, then you post a comment challenging me on my opinions.  Really, anyone who was actually reading this thread would have known that I was referring to the type of "homeless bums" that sleep under piers in 85 degree weather, not the type that sleep at a homeless shelter because it's 32 degrees.  Particularly since I already mentioned that fact, twice.

Maybe you could post some links of evidence?

I mean, you know, instead of whining?

The whining is what makes it fun, Kris; particularly with yourself.  That said, I did go out of my way, and found a direct contradiction to both Arebelspy & PKFFW at the same time.  I went directly to the horse's mouth; the Australian government and their definition of "homelessness"

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4922.0Appendix32012?opendocument&tabname=Notes&prodno=4922.0&issue=2012&num=&view=

For the government speak challenged, here is the relevant part quoted, emphasis is mine...

Primary homelessness accords with the common sense assumption that homelessness is the same as 'rooflessness'. It includes all people without conventional accommodation, such as people living on the streets, sleeping in parks, squatting in derelict buildings, or using cars or railway carriages for temporary shelter. Primary homelessness is operationalised using the census category 'improvised homes, tents and sleepers out'.

Secondary homelessness includes people who move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another. On Census night, it includes all people staying in emergency or transitional accommodation provided under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP). The starting point for identifying this group is the Census category 'hostels for the homeless, night shelters and refuges'. Secondary homelessness also includes people residing temporarily with other households because they have no accommodation of their own. They report 'no usual address' on their census form. Secondary homelessness also includes people staying in boarding houses on a short-term basis, operationally defined as 12 weeks or less.

Tertiary homelessness refers to people who live in boarding houses on a medium to long-term basis, operationally defined as 13 weeks or longer. Residents of private boarding houses do not have separate bedrooms and living rooms; they do not have kitchen and bathroom facilities of their own; their accommodation is not self-contained; and they do not have security of tenure provided by a lease. They are homeless because their accommodation does not have the characteristics identified in the minimum community standard

So not only are the voluntary homeless counted, if they happen to be polled, but even those who; by choice or economic conditions, do not actually have their own minimum standard flat, would be considered 'tertiary homeless', which I can only presume is included in the statistics at some reduced amount.  My point isn't that 1 person renting out a bedroom in a boarding house is equal to 1 person homeless in the official stats, but that boarder is considered at all.

Furthermore, on the same page, they completely undermine the statistics of homelessness in all of the European Union, by asserting the following...

ETHOS DEFINITION

The European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS) defined homelessness as being without a ‘home’. Having a ‘home’ can be understood as: having an adequate dwelling (or space) over which a person and his/her family can exercise exclusive possession (physical domain); being able to maintain privacy and enjoy relations (social domain) and having a legal title to occupation (legal domain).

That last part is quite telling.  It means that, on some level, anyone that does not have (or does not report as such when asked by a government agent) a legal mailing address, is included into the statistics.  This method, and the part above, would logically lead to the result that at least some voluntary homeless would be included into the official stats, as it's simply unavoidable due to the relatively broad definitions, and the fact that "I chose to do this" is not a disqualifying condition under Australia's rules.  (that part is too large, and boring, to quote. If you doubt me, feel free to read the site. I will entertain a counter-argument, Kris)

[Kris]

And a reference to "unaccompanied youth" has no bearing upon what I was commenting upon.

Huh?  It seems exactly like what you were talking about.

I was talking above about young adults who are away from home for adventure, without any permanent home or income, but with the assurance that returning to their parents' home is realistically possible.  Kris posted a link to a paper concerned with unaccompanied minors who are homeless.  Basically runaways and turnouts between the ages of 12 and 17.  Apples and oranges. 

Because that type of homeless (traveler) is not actually homeless.

I have no home right now (perpetual traveler), but I'm not counted on any "homeless" statistic, because that's not how it works.

The backpacker across Europe doesn't stay in a homeless shelter.

She was trying to present data on the actual homeless, not on people who jokingly call themselves homeless for a few months.

My claim is that these two major classes of 'by choice' homeless have become a majority of homelessness in the United States.

Do you have any evidence to support this?  Because all of the posted links so far show nothing of the sort.  And claiming they aren't related is ridiculous--they're literally studies of America's homeless population.

That's real slick, Arebelspy. First you ban me for a comment that you would have overlooked if anyone had done it to me, then you post a comment challenging me on my opinions.  Really, anyone who was actually reading this thread would have known that I was referring to the type of "homeless bums" that sleep under piers in 85 degree weather, not the type that sleep at a homeless shelter because it's 32 degrees.  Particularly since I already mentioned that fact, twice.

Maybe you could post some links of evidence?

I mean, you know, instead of whining?

The whining is what makes it fun, Kris; particularly with yourself.  That said, I did go out of my way, and found a direct contradiction to both Arebelspy & PKFFW at the same time.  I went directly to the horse's mouth; the Australian government and their definition of "homelessness"

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4922.0Appendix32012?opendocument&tabname=Notes&prodno=4922.0&issue=2012&num=&view=

For the government speak challenged, here is the relevant part quoted, emphasis is mine...

Primary homelessness accords with the common sense assumption that homelessness is the same as 'rooflessness'. It includes all people without conventional accommodation, such as people living on the streets, sleeping in parks, squatting in derelict buildings, or using cars or railway carriages for temporary shelter. Primary homelessness is operationalised using the census category 'improvised homes, tents and sleepers out'.

Secondary homelessness includes people who move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another. On Census night, it includes all people staying in emergency or transitional accommodation provided under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP). The starting point for identifying this group is the Census category 'hostels for the homeless, night shelters and refuges'. Secondary homelessness also includes people residing temporarily with other households because they have no accommodation of their own. They report 'no usual address' on their census form. Secondary homelessness also includes people staying in boarding houses on a short-term basis, operationally defined as 12 weeks or less.

Tertiary homelessness refers to people who live in boarding houses on a medium to long-term basis, operationally defined as 13 weeks or longer. Residents of private boarding houses do not have separate bedrooms and living rooms; they do not have kitchen and bathroom facilities of their own; their accommodation is not self-contained; and they do not have security of tenure provided by a lease. They are homeless because their accommodation does not have the characteristics identified in the minimum community standard

So not only are the voluntary homeless counted, if they happen to be polled, but even those who; by choice or economic conditions, do not actually have their own minimum standard flat, would be considered 'tertiary homeless', which I can only presume is included in the statistics at some reduced amount.  My point isn't that 1 person renting out a bedroom in a boarding house is equal to 1 person homeless in the official stats, but that boarder is considered at all.

Furthermore, on the same page, they completely undermine the statistics of homelessness in all of the European Union, by asserting the following...

ETHOS DEFINITION

The European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS) defined homelessness as being without a ‘home’. Having a ‘home’ can be understood as: having an adequate dwelling (or space) over which a person and his/her family can exercise exclusive possession (physical domain); being able to maintain privacy and enjoy relations (social domain) and having a legal title to occupation (legal domain).

That last part is quite telling.  It means that, on some level, anyone that does not have (or does not report at such when asked by a government agent) a legal mailing address, is included into the statistics.  This method, and the part above, would logically lead to the result that at least some voluntary homeless would be included into the official stats, as it's simply unavoidable due to the relatively broad definitions, and the fact that "I chose to do this" is not a disqualifying condition under Australia's rules.  (that part is too large, and boring, to quote. If you doubt me, feel free to read the site. I will entertain a counter-argument, Kris)

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

[MoonShadow]

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

[Kris]

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

So, you're havinv trouble finding relevant data for the US?

[MoonShadow]

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

So, you're havinv trouble finding relevant data for the US?

No, I'm not looking.  I gave you that task, Kris.  Are you saying you can't find it?

[Kris]

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

So, you're havinv trouble finding relevant data for the US?

No, I'm not looking.  I gave you that task, Kris.  Are you saying you can't find it?

Lol, no. The burden is on you. But I'm not surprised you are trying to deflect it.

[MoonShadow]

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

So, you're havinv trouble finding relevant data for the US?

No, I'm not looking.  I gave you that task, Kris.  Are you saying you can't find it?

Lol, no. The burden is on you. But I'm not surprised you are trying to deflect it.

I have no such burdens.  I do as much as I please for my own reasons.  I'm not obligated to disprove your misconceptions, Kris, and I know full well that you would just abandon this thread if I were to mildly succeed.  You may continue to believe what you wish, Kris.

[Kris]

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

So, you're havinv trouble finding relevant data for the US?

No, I'm not looking.  I gave you that task, Kris.  Are you saying you can't find it?

Lol, no. The burden is on you. But I'm not surprised you are trying to deflect it.

I have no such burdens.  I do as much as I please for my own reasons.  I'm not obligated to disprove your misconceptions, Kris, and I know full well that you would just abandon this thread if I were to mildly succeed.  You may continue to believe what you wish, Kris.

Dude, anyone can make any claims, however unsubstantiated, that they want.

The fact that you prefer to attack rather than defend your points with data?

And pretend that I'm the one dancing around my arguments?

Yeah, it's pretty obvious. And I'm still waiting for your data from the US.

[MoonShadow]

Why do you feel the need to go as far as Australia for your argument?

A source from the US, or Canada, would be a lot more useful to the point you are trying to make.

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

So, you're havinv trouble finding relevant data for the US?

No, I'm not looking.  I gave you that task, Kris.  Are you saying you can't find it?

Lol, no. The burden is on you. But I'm not surprised you are trying to deflect it.

I have no such burdens.  I do as much as I please for my own reasons.  I'm not obligated to disprove your misconceptions, Kris, and I know full well that you would just abandon this thread if I were to mildly succeed.  You may continue to believe what you wish, Kris.

Dude, anyone can make any claims, however unsubstantiated, that they want.

The fact that you prefer to attack rather than defend your points with data?

And pretend that I'm the one dancing around my arguments?

Yeah, it's pretty obvious. And I'm still waiting for your data from the US.

I'm going to point out here, again, that I did actually present data relevant to the topic of conversation.  Just because you desire to pivot the topic to focus upon a subset that you believe might actually favor your position, I'm not obligated to do your work for you.  If you believe that US data, methodology or definitions are substantially different from Australia's data, methodology or definitions; then please, show your evidence to that assertion.  If you won't, or can't, refute the actual evidence that I have provided with counter evidence of your own; then please have the intellectual honesty to admit that fact.  If you fail even in that small thing, then feel free to quietly pound sand.

[PKFFW]

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

No, you did not disprove my assertion.  In fact you actually proved my assertion quite nicely.

Primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness require that the homeless person actually not have conventional accommodation.

A traveler, backpacker or otherwise "voluntary homeless" person does still actually have conventional accommodation, they are simply not residing at that accommodation at the present time.

Ergo, they are not included in the homeless statistics as evidenced by the very definitions that you so kindly linked to.

[MoonShadow]

For two reasons, Kris; both of which should have been obvious.  First PKFFW made the claim that, in Australia, a backpacker would not be considered as homeless.  I completely disproved that assertion in one, relatively accessible, link.  And two, because the US government isn't nearly as forthcoming about their methodology, on pretty much anything.  So I'm much less likely to be able to find the relevant definitions & methodology in one place, even if it's available; and that sounds too much like work.  Feel free to do that kind of research, if you feel up to it, Kris.

As for Canada, I don't see how it's more relevant to the topic than Australia would be.  I don't live in Canada, and neither does PKFFW.

No, you did not disprove my assertion.  In fact you actually proved my assertion quite nicely.

Primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness require that the homeless person actually not have conventional accommodation.

A traveler, backpacker or otherwise "voluntary homeless" person does still actually have conventional accommodation, they are simply not residing at that accommodation at the present time.

Ergo, they are not included in the homeless statistics as evidenced by the very definitions that you so kindly linked to.

Actually, that's a good point.  So I will concede that a typical backpacker, who can just go home to his/her parents, shouldn't appear in the statistics of homelessness in Australia.

Still, the fact that those who live in boarding houses count in those statistics is pretty misleading.

[PKFFW]

Actually, that's a good point.  So I will concede that a typical backpacker, who can just go home to his/her parents, shouldn't appear in the statistics of homelessness in Australia.

Still, the fact that those who live in boarding houses count in those statistics is pretty misleading.

I agree with you regarding boarding house accommodation.  I don't believe homeless is an accurate description for someone living in a boarding house.  Something more like "non-secure tenancy" or such like would be more appropriate.

[enigmaT120]

In local paper articles I read that people who live in RVs are counted in the homeless population.  No mention of tiny houses.  But several ERE people live or have lived in RVs by choice. 

I kind of grew up like that so for me it would feel like homelessness.  For others it feels like freedom. 

[Jeremy E.]

Time to bring back an old thread....

Currently, our social security budget is $900 billion per year to cover 60 million people, that means they receive an average of $15,000/year, or $1,250/month. If we applied this to all non-children for a universal basic income it would cost 3.74 Trillion(however I assume we would give a partial amount to children, probably bumping that up to 4 Trillion). This could get rid of spending on social security(although many would be against it, as it would be reducing some peoples benefits, and giving benefits they worked for to everyone, even those who don't work), as well as our income security(unemployment, disability, nutrition assistance, etc.), which together currently cost 1.2 Trillion, we would have to find a way to come up with another 1.54 Trillion if we don't give any benefit to children, and another 1.8 Trillion if we give them a partial benefit. We wouldn't get rid of Medicare or Medicaid, because even if we provide them with their basic necessities, we will still provide the elderly and less fortunate with affordable health care. So we would need to find somewhere else to get that money, you could say cut the military! But even if you completely cut the military, which costs $586 Billion per year, you would still need another Trillion or more(and this would never happen anyway). The bottom line is, it's not currently possible in the US. One thing I find funny, is that the same people arguing that this would work, are also for Sanders, who also suggests things that are implausible. What if they tried to combine the two? Medicare for all, Free four year public college for all, Universal Basic Income for all, etc. etc. etc. Currently we already have a higher national debt than our GDP, not even including our unfunded social security and medicare liabilities. We need to focus on ways to decrease spending, federal spending that the US could live without, plausible ways to increase taxes with the smallest impact to our economy, ways to increase our GDP, etc.

[LennStar]

Time to bring back an old thread....

Currently, our social security budget is $900 billion per year to cover 60 million people, that means they receive an average of $15,000/year, or $1,250/month. If we applied this to all non-children for a universal basic income it would cost 3.74 Trillion(however I assume we would give a partial amount to children, probably bumping that up to 4 Trillion). This could get rid of spending on social security(although many would be against it, as it would be reducing some peoples benefits, and giving benefits they worked for to everyone, even those who don't work), as well as our income security(unemployment, disability, nutrition assistance, etc.), which together currently cost 1.2 Trillion, we would have to find a way to come up with another 1.54 Trillion if we don't give any benefit to children, and another 1.8 Trillion if we give them a partial benefit. We wouldn't get rid of Medicare or Medicaid, because even if we provide them with their basic necessities, we will still provide the elderly and less fortunate with affordable health care. So we would need to find somewhere else to get that money, you could say cut the military! But even if you completely cut the military, which costs $586 Billion per year, you would still need another Trillion or more(and this would never happen anyway). The bottom line is, it's not currently possible in the US. One thing I find funny, is that the same people arguing that this would work, are also for Sanders, who also suggests things that are implausible. What if they tried to combine the two? Medicare for all, Free four year public college for all, Universal Basic Income for all, etc. etc. etc. Currently we already have a higher national debt than our GDP, not even including our unfunded social security and medicare liabilities. We need to focus on ways to decrease spending, federal spending that the US could live without, plausible ways to increase taxes with the smallest impact to our economy, ways to increase our GDP, etc.

You are making the big error most people do if they talk about an UBI, because we all are used so much to it.
You talk about the money.
But money is just a measurement. In this case of the distribution of the national taxes on national production. Your are looking at the means, not the target.

If you want to know if an UBI is possible in country X (and approximately to which amount) look not at money, but at production.
Is the US able to feed, clothe, shelter and medical support every single of its citizen?
Without much research I am quite sure the answer is yes, because you are already (for the most people) are doing that and still have production left for an impressive amount of luxuries (and stupidities like clown car driving).
So yes, an UBI is possible (target). The remaining question is only how to distribute your wealth (means).

And that is the part where most people get aggressive because they fear they will lose something material, either benefits or paying higher taxes (do you pay more taxes then 1250 dollar a month currently? and if yes, would paying more be sooo bad on your financial health in a mustachian life?)


=====

For the Sanders comment: I am not into the details, but putting an UBI aside and taking only an conditional basic income - then about 2 dozen countries are already doing most/all of what you mentioned, so it cant be that impossible.

=====

If we stop looking at the means (money) and start looking at production and distribution (and creating an UBI), we could also start working towards automatisation instead of trying to prevent it. Self-driving cars will mean 80% of taxi drivers and car producers  will lost their jobs?
GREAT! is what you would say then. Instead, today, it is a tragedy.
Just 200 years ago about 75% of people worked in the field of growing things on fields. Today its 1% of that. Automatisation and technical advancement.
Just 50 years ago there were whole buildings in big companies only doing the bookkeeping. Today you have a room full only.
And so on.
Our production capabilites per work hour today are bigger then we need for an UBI. And they could easily be increased 2-3 fold (for all work until 2050.


About a century ago John Maynard Keynes - you probably know him as the most influential economist of the first half of the 20th century, or as the archenemy of neoliberals - predicted that in 2000 everyone would only work 15-20 hours a week because of increasing efficiency.
Was he completely wrong, since we still do the 40/48 hours a week? Did our production per work hour not increase?
No, it did. So why was he wrong? There are things he could not know because they didn't existed - TV and the whole modern movie industry for example. But that amounts only to a small part of the missing hours.
Mostly the reason is: We did not use the increase in efficiency to work less, but to produce more. House sizes quadrupled in the US while the number of people living in one house dropped. Everyone has a car and flying to other parts of the world once a year or more often is normal. And so on.
But this cant go on. We are already using nearly two "earths" every year - with just 1/6 of the population living a spendypants life. If humanity wants to survive (without a big catastrophy and only a few survivors) then we have no other choice then to use the efficiency gains to use less resources instead of producing more, which will result in job loss.
But under the current protestant-capitalistic model (only he who works shall eat) that is impossible.
The only way I can see to prevent this catastrophy is an UBI (or something very similar). The good part is: an UBI is possible, as I have shown above, and will be easier with every increase in efficiency.

[MoonShadow]

Time to bring back an old thread....

Currently, our social security budget is $900 billion per year to cover 60 million people, that means they receive an average of $15,000/year, or $1,250/month. If we applied this to all non-children for a universal basic income it would cost 3.74 Trillion(however I assume we would give a partial amount to children, probably bumping that up to 4 Trillion). This could get rid of spending on social security(although many would be against it, as it would be reducing some peoples benefits, and giving benefits they worked for to everyone, even those who don't work), as well as our income security(unemployment, disability, nutrition assistance, etc.), which together currently cost 1.2 Trillion, we would have to find a way to come up with another 1.54 Trillion if we don't give any benefit to children, and another 1.8 Trillion if we give them a partial benefit. We wouldn't get rid of Medicare or Medicaid, because even if we provide them with their basic necessities, we will still provide the elderly and less fortunate with affordable health care. So we would need to find somewhere else to get that money, you could say cut the military! But even if you completely cut the military, which costs $586 Billion per year, you would still need another Trillion or more(and this would never happen anyway). The bottom line is, it's not currently possible in the US. One thing I find funny, is that the same people arguing that this would work, are also for Sanders, who also suggests things that are implausible. What if they tried to combine the two? Medicare for all, Free four year public college for all, Universal Basic Income for all, etc. etc. etc. Currently we already have a higher national debt than our GDP, not even including our unfunded social security and medicare liabilities. We need to focus on ways to decrease spending, federal spending that the US could live without, plausible ways to increase taxes with the smallest impact to our economy, ways to increase our GDP, etc.

You are making the big error most people do if they talk about an UBI, because we all are used so much to it.
You talk about the money.
But money is just a measurement. In this case of the distribution of the national taxes on national production. Your are looking at the means, not the target.

If you want to know if an UBI is possible in country X (and approximately to which amount) look not at money, but at production.
Is the US able to feed, clothe, shelter and medical support every single of its citizen?
Without much research I am quite sure the answer is yes, because you are already (for the most people) are doing that and still have production left for an impressive amount of luxuries (and stupidities like clown car driving).
So yes, an UBI is possible (target). The remaining question is only how to distribute your wealth (means).

But then, a UBI would be a dis-incentive towards that same production, so you cannot assume a snapshot of the current productivity and extrapolate that into the future.  You can't even do that if you don't change anything, because a society of rising wealth already has a great many trends counter to productivity.  If there is a means to determine if a society can sustain, over many generations, an UBI policy; this isn't it.

[LennStar]

Yes, quite likely production would drop - mostly in the areas we mustachians would consider idiotic (like buying all clothes new every year).

But would that be bad?
Bad would only if production would drop in the life necessities. Which wont happen because there will always be people who want more money then the UBI (to finance travel or clown cars or bigger then necessary houses etc.). Or because they just do X because it is fun for them. Or because we already have automatisied it. (Farming is again at the front point of big change here - GPS navigation for vehicles, computerised water giving, image recognition for harvesting and sorteering etc.) Automated re-supply and paying in the supermarket? Possible today. Just still more expensive today because no one wants to start it and make all the costly trials and redesigning and also errors you make at start.


But back to your point again here is the second common misconception I think!
An UBI would not be implemented like a switch - press a button and the whole economic system ist completely changed in the next second. it is a decade long process in which a "dropping production" would not be seen for things you daily use. Maybe luxuries, but again that is no problem. Instead it would be a trasfer of increased effectivity from "more stuff" to "better (more ecological) stuff" and "less time worked (for money) per person".

Just yesterday I had a conversation about "what if you are rich" - me: stop working.
she: Wouldnt that be boring?
me: No, I have always more things to do then I have time. Like putting more time into politics to stop corruption,
she: That definitely needs a lot of work.

[winkeyman]

Based on the following personal experiences:

1. Currently periodically volunteering to survey homeless people to get an estimate of the number in my city.
2. Formerly working with my city's Food Not Bombs chapter.
3. Formerly working with an organization hosting benefit concerts for homeless causes in my city.

It seems to me that the majority of homeless people in my city (about 60 percent or more) for one reason or another have no interest in becoming not-homeless.

Another 20 percent are interested in becoming not-homeless. They almost always become not-homeless fairly quickly with the help of government and private assistance.

The last 20 percent are interested in becoming not-homeless, but are unable to do so, or to be helped effectively due to mental health issues, legal issues, or a combination of both.

Just my 2 cents.

[ariapluscat]

You are making an assumption here without support.  This effect can also be explained in other ways, namely that a lot of young people are 'homeless' by deliberate decision.  Granted, I have no more data than you do; but when a 20 year old backpacks across Europe, s/he is technically homeless, even if opportunities to sleep in a youth hostel or shelter exist.  The Millennial generation is a large one, and the concept of sleeping on a couch for a few days, then going someplace else, is ingrained into them in ways that it was not in older generations. 

Young people are homeless by deliberate choice: Probably not?
when a 20 year old backpacks across Europe, he or she has probably got a home address listed, usually a parent or friend, to which mail and other things can go. So the backpacker isn't counted as homeless, certainly not long term or chronically. Similarly, if they're sleeping in a hostel or homeless shelter or backpacking community, that organization is likely to do surveying and polling to track whether people using their services are tourist-backpackers or domestic homeless or something else.
At least, this is my understanding based on polisci coursework explaining census taking in the US. Is there a reason you think they would be considered homeless?

And as a millennial first, I resent the use of the millennial label. Young people aren't a completely different species with unknown/unheard of wants. Most millennials I know want long term stability and nice things. It's why so many of us took out large loans for college - because we love education and also building a career that will allow us to have a nice house to live in.
Most of us don't want to couch surf indefinitely. And even if we did, presumably some of the couches we surf on belong to fellow millennials who have settled down in rentals or owned homes.

Anecdotally, the young people who have couch surfed have done so while between housing due to weird leases, and usually for less than a month. Certainly they weren't captured as homeless in any US census or use of homeless services. I kind of like the increased flexibility of cohort housing rather than parental housing, like that young ppl would rather stay with a friend than move back home with the parents.

 

[ariapluscat]

Anyway, returning to the earlier question of the poll:
I do think the poll could be better worded and would probably need some follow up questions.
Does the forum set up allow for a longer multi question poll?

I don't think we should just give up bias priming removal because ~hand wave~ all polls are biased. But rather, we should use both polls and long form interviews. The discussion here doesn't really follow that since the OP isn't proding the flow of discussion with a set goal in mind.

I do like knowing the bias of the poll writer. It's useful and often pretty lacking. Same goes for knowing the bias of the sample group here. I'm always kind of surprised by the plethora of opinion on social net issues, especially on this forum. It does seem that boot-strappers are over represented in the MMM forums, but it makes sense with the forum and blog's overall tone.

To clarify my answer, I don't think a universal basic income would increase costs compared to current us welfare and support services, but I would support it even if it did and even if all of the MMM forum users decided to use it to retire early and all the homeless people near the dock used it to get hella drunk in public. I'd support it because I've used support networks myself, as a youth, and they gave me and friends the chance to get out of dangerous situations we wouldn't have survived otherwise. Now I'm glad to say I'm off of them, but I am glad for people who will rely on them for a long time. Plus the networks gave us a lot of motivation to give back to the people who made the support possible, adopt youth, and work really hard on things we think will help others.
Maybe the poll should have something of a motivation or background section? Like do people who have used support or guaranteed income want to continue or expand it? Would people support it if they thought that it would only go to the Good Homeless? or natural born citizens?

[Jeremy E.]

Time to bring back an old thread....

Currently, our social security budget is $900 billion per year to cover 60 million people, that means they receive an average of $15,000/year, or $1,250/month. If we applied this to all non-children for a universal basic income it would cost 3.74 Trillion(however I assume we would give a partial amount to children, probably bumping that up to 4 Trillion). This could get rid of spending on social security(although many would be against it, as it would be reducing some peoples benefits, and giving benefits they worked for to everyone, even those who don't work), as well as our income security(unemployment, disability, nutrition assistance, etc.), which together currently cost 1.2 Trillion, we would have to find a way to come up with another 1.54 Trillion if we don't give any benefit to children, and another 1.8 Trillion if we give them a partial benefit. We wouldn't get rid of Medicare or Medicaid, because even if we provide them with their basic necessities, we will still provide the elderly and less fortunate with affordable health care. So we would need to find somewhere else to get that money, you could say cut the military! But even if you completely cut the military, which costs $586 Billion per year, you would still need another Trillion or more(and this would never happen anyway). The bottom line is, it's not currently possible in the US. One thing I find funny, is that the same people arguing that this would work, are also for Sanders, who also suggests things that are implausible. What if they tried to combine the two? Medicare for all, Free four year public college for all, Universal Basic Income for all, etc. etc. etc. Currently we already have a higher national debt than our GDP, not even including our unfunded social security and medicare liabilities. We need to focus on ways to decrease spending, federal spending that the US could live without, plausible ways to increase taxes with the smallest impact to our economy, ways to increase our GDP, etc.

You are making the big error most people do if they talk about an UBI, because we all are used so much to it.
You talk about the money.
But money is just a measurement. In this case of the distribution of the national taxes on national production. Your are looking at the means, not the target.

If you want to know if an UBI is possible in country X (and approximately to which amount) look not at money, but at production.
Is the US able to feed, clothe, shelter and medical support every single of its citizen?
Without much research I am quite sure the answer is yes, because you are already (for the most people) are doing that and still have production left for an impressive amount of luxuries (and stupidities like clown car driving).
So yes, an UBI is possible (target). The remaining question is only how to distribute your wealth (means).

And that is the part where most people get aggressive because they fear they will lose something material, either benefits or paying higher taxes (do you pay more taxes then 1250 dollar a month currently? and if yes, would paying more be sooo bad on your financial health in a mustachian life?)


=====

For the Sanders comment: I am not into the details, but putting an UBI aside and taking only an conditional basic income - then about 2 dozen countries are already doing most/all of what you mentioned, so it cant be that impossible.

=====

If we stop looking at the means (money) and start looking at production and distribution (and creating an UBI), we could also start working towards automatisation instead of trying to prevent it. Self-driving cars will mean 80% of taxi drivers and car producers  will lost their jobs?
GREAT! is what you would say then. Instead, today, it is a tragedy.
Just 200 years ago about 75% of people worked in the field of growing things on fields. Today its 1% of that. Automatisation and technical advancement.
Just 50 years ago there were whole buildings in big companies only doing the bookkeeping. Today you have a room full only.
And so on.
Our production capabilites per work hour today are bigger then we need for an UBI. And they could easily be increased 2-3 fold (for all work until 2050.


About a century ago John Maynard Keynes - you probably know him as the most influential economist of the first half of the 20th century, or as the archenemy of neoliberals - predicted that in 2000 everyone would only work 15-20 hours a week because of increasing efficiency.
Was he completely wrong, since we still do the 40/48 hours a week? Did our production per work hour not increase?
No, it did. So why was he wrong? There are things he could not know because they didn't existed - TV and the whole modern movie industry for example. But that amounts only to a small part of the missing hours.
Mostly the reason is: We did not use the increase in efficiency to work less, but to produce more. House sizes quadrupled in the US while the number of people living in one house dropped. Everyone has a car and flying to other parts of the world once a year or more often is normal. And so on.
But this cant go on. We are already using nearly two "earths" every year - with just 1/6 of the population living a spendypants life. If humanity wants to survive (without a big catastrophy and only a few survivors) then we have no other choice then to use the efficiency gains to use less resources instead of producing more, which will result in job loss.
But under the current protestant-capitalistic model (only he who works shall eat) that is impossible.
The only way I can see to prevent this catastrophy is an UBI (or something very similar). The good part is: an UBI is possible, as I have shown above, and will be easier with every increase in efficiency.

I suppose it would be possible if you take our 12.4% social security tax and quadruple it up to 49.6%(while not reducing other taxes), which if our economy stays the same, will bring in 3.6 Trillion, we also have 300 billion from assistance programs we could remove to make 3.9 Trillion. However, what you are ignoring is American Politics, no politician could get something like this through congress, and Sanders is probably the only US presidential candidate ever that would even consider not vetoing it(and he doesn't stand a chance against Hillary anyways).

[bb11]

I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.

[Jeremy E.]

I voted in support of a UBI, and said I would be willing to work an additional 5 years for it. I don't think it would necessarily require that though.

The program would not require significant tax increases for the average person; rather it likely necessitates increases in the top marginal tax brackets. This goes to all forms of income: personal income tax, capital gains/dividends tax, and estate tax. That is something I fully support, even though I intend to end up in those tax brackets over time. I'll note that in the 60's/70's at different points the US' top income tax rate was 91%, capital gains tax rate was 40%, and estate tax rate was 77%. I'd like to see something similar, although probably a lower income tax rate and higher rates for capital gains.

I think others have summed up well why. A UBI directly helps everyone with the stipend, providing enormous benefits to those on the low end of the income scale in access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity. It indirectly helps the already well-off via a more educated populace and therefore stronger labor force, as well as reduced crime. I think the well-off are morally obligated to give back to ensure others have the same opportunity.

I think if you increase taxes that much, and provide a large UBI, people will start quiting for sure. The more people that move onto UBI, the higher you have to tax others, you can't make UBI desirable enough to have too many people quit or it won't work.

[Cassie]

When studies have been done about the homeless population over and over again about 75% are mentally ill.  If they were treated that number would drop but we would rather put them in jail in a revolving door then treat the real problem. Homelessness started to occur during the Reagan years when all the institutions were closed.  In our state there was a big scandal because a hospital in Vegas was giving the homeless a bus ticket to Cali instead of treating them when they arrived for help.