Austin experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. They spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing, a stud

[Eugene]

Source: Business Insider

Austin experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. They spent the no-strings-attached cash mostly on housing, a study found.

Kenneth Niemeyer
Updated Mon, January 29, 2024 at 7:15 AM EST·3 min read

A guaranteed-basic-income plan in one of Texas' largest cities reduced rates of housing insecurity. But some Texas lawmakers are not happy.

Austin was the first city in Texas to launch a tax-payer-funded guaranteed-income program when the Austin Guaranteed Income Pilot kicked off in May 2022. The program served 135 low-income families, each receiving $1,000 monthly. Funding for 85 families came from the City of Austin, while philanthropic donations funded the other 50.

The program was billed as a means to boost people out of poverty and help them afford housing. "We know that if we trust people to make the right decisions for themselves and their families, it leads to better outcomes," the city says on its website. "It leads to better jobs, increased savings, food security, housing security."

While the program ended in August 2023, a new study from the Urban Institute, a Washington, DC, think tank, found that the city's program did, in fact, help its participants pay for housing and food. On average, program participants reported spending more than half of the cash they received on housing, the report said.

-snip-

Read more: https://news.yahoo.com/austin-experimented-giving-people-1-141522585.html

[thucythucy]

1. Instead of jailing or institutionalizing people

for being poor or homeless, this is a way to help people that is both more humane and effective.

Thanks for posting this.

[viva la]

2. This would also be cheaper.

A day in jail costs about $50 in my state. (I mean, it costs the county that much to keep someone in jail.)

That's $1500 a month.

[thucythucy]

13. Absolutely!

It's interesting how the most humane options also so often turn out to be the most cost effective.

Just as another example: home health care and independent living services are less costly than locking people into nursing homes. Most people consigned to nursing homes might just as easily and effectively be cared for in their own homes, but instead of subsidizing home health options and independent living programs, we spend billions subsidizing nursing homes. Unless you're a lobbyist for the nursing home industry, or a shareholder, this makes no sense at all.

[dlk]

3. Comparing the cost of incarceration to cash payments

Is a no brainer. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars could be saved redirected to schools, infrastructure projects, and so forth, if we stopped locking up too many people for every little thing.

Private prisons have become big business in America and that speaks volumes about our values.

[Alice Kramden]

4. KnR

We should do this everywhere

[llmart]

6. But OMG, that would be akin to Soshulism!!

We can't have that now, can we? Even if it benefits the country, the economy, and those who receive the guaranteed income, the goobers would decry a move like this.

[Kid Berwyn]

5. The Problem

Only one group in the USA is entitled to free money: the Rich.

For example: The Great Bank Bailout of 2008 or…

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4055207

Socialize the Risk, Privatize the Reward, and the Rich Get Richer, per plan.

[dchill]

7. Good old BFEE: still fighting the bad fight.

[efhmc]

11. What is BFEE? Goggle says Bush Family Evil Empire?

[dchill]

14. That's it.

[Richard D]

8. I would imagine that we've seen only the first inklings . . .

. . of joblessness. It is not far into the future when AI and robotics will replace a good portion of human labor. Manufacturing, farming, trucking, delivery, and so many other facets of daily life will be easily replaced with robotics. What then? We need to consider this and start planning ahead.

[malthaussen]

9. Every time this is tried, it works well. Then the politicians ignore it. n/t

[Orrex]

10. If you're not punishing society's most vulnerable, are you even capitalisming?

[Fix The Stupid]

12. The ONLY way this works, and I wish it would happen,

is to make the income TRULY universal.

Yes, that means Bill Gates gets the $1500.00 per month too.

So do the douchebag billionaires and millionaires.

It's the only way to sell it to the masses. It's the only way to be 'fair'.

This will make some heads explode around here, but it's the only path forward if you want to see UBC become a reality.

[thucythucy]

16. I don't think any heads here would explode.

Most on DU for instance support Social Security not being "means tested"--which means the rich are entitled to their monthly payments just like the rest of us.

But I think you're right about how to "sell" this to the public. Make it universal, just like Medicare and Social Security. The usual suspects would still howl--Ronald Reagan remember told us Medicare would put us on the path to communism--but within a few years the vast majority would end up taking it for granted.

Remember all the people crying "Keep government out of my Medicare!"

Even the knuckle draggers will come on board, despite their hatred of "socialism" and "big government."

[Backseat Driver]

15. LOL, Monday morning BC (before coffee), reading OP's title, "Wait, wasn't that Yang's experiment, not Lloyd Austin's?

I returned to begin reading the content...said something about housing...my brain BC...wondered what a stud (as in either beefcake or construction framing?) had to do with this...$1K sure wouldn't go far considering developer's asking price for housing in my neighborhood.

[maxsolomon]

17. If they'd spent the money on MSSAs, that'd be cool with the Cons.

Rittenhouse-style.