868
UBI Cash Payments Reduced Homelessness, Increased Employment in Denver
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
868 points (97.0% liked)
World News
32321 readers
766 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Remember, we know how to address many of the world's problems, including poverty, homelessness, and climate change.
But those with capital in society choose not to.
That's a good 80% of the population
Except that's just false. I actually cannot fathom where you pulled that estimate from.
You can argue that national poverty lines are made to be kept under a certain percentage, sure, then we can ignore that. Globally, yes, the majority doesn't have capital (as in financial capital), but per country, there are stark differences. More things to consider
Especially GNI PPP: if you live in Europe, North America, Australia, China, Japan, and a few other countries, there's a good chance you belong to the global 20% of high income earners. The minimum wage in your country will probably be higher than what a low income family earns in a year
https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
Can you fathom?
We are talking about people who have the capital in society to make actual systemic changes to society. Such as restructuring our economy to value lives, wellbeing, and sustainability over profit.
Quite obviously 80% of people do not have that capital.
You are cherrypicking statistics, seemingly to deliberately miss the point.
Global comparisons of income mean exactly nothing to the quality of life of people living within their country.
Even people deemed in that global top 20% are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and are unable to leverage that to make changes.
At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there were an estimated 200 million people and virtually 100% poverty.
Now there are over 8.5 billion people and yet we've managed to reduce both poverty and hunger to the lowest levels in history. Along with the lowest rates of people dying due to war.
socialism didn't do that.
Completely irrelevant to what I wrote. My comment has nothing to do with socialism.
Not to mention fallaciously attributing technological innovations to capitalism as if they could not occur under other economic systems.
So in your fantasy world we would be at 8.5 billion people along with low poverty, hunger, and deaths from war... but replacing capitalism with socialism.
Likely you fantasize no income and instead it would be the whole "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" thing, right?
Unfortunately for your fantasy... the result of socialism has always been the deaths of millions of people through starvation and murder (followed by collapse and/or acceptance of capitalism)
Are you a bot, or just responding to the wrong person? Because that's the second comment in a row that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
What I wrote is completely germane, you just can't admit it or argue against what I'm saying because then it would be harder for you to gaslight people into voting for socialism.
You are the only one ranting about socialism here.
I'm not ranting about anything, I'm just responding to your posts. It's not my fault you choose to speak in euphemisms rather than directly say what you mean.
Anyway, this is not about me. So unless you want to try and defend your indefensible positions... have a nice day.
So you have imagined my entire worldview and all the positions you are arguing against.
No, dickhead. When I argue for socialism, I actually argue for socialism with my full chest, not with euphemisms.
So you slither into my mentions, hallucinate things I didn't say, and expect me to "defend" arguments that only exist in your head. Sod all the way off.
Dropping the biggest turd of an argument and expecting me to pick it up. Pick it up yourself, and eat it.
𝐍𝐨, 𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐈 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐲 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬.
And there it is, the extremist trademark. Attack and demonize anyone not in your "tribe". They're just an "other" right?
Thanks for confirming everything I thought about you.
I haven't demonised you. I called you a dickhead. And I called you a dickhead because of your actions, not your beliefs.
Think whatever you want about me. It was clear from your first message that you were going to do that anyway, considering you imagined my entire worldview.
I'm nOT RANtinG. GeRManE. HAve a Nice Day.
Are you confusing socialism with communism again? And are you confusing authoritarian dictatorships with communism?
I have never confused socialism with communism.
Although Marx did call socialism "lesser communism".
😆🤦
It sure helped, though.
Probably one of the biggest benefactors.
Socialism has resulted in the deaths of millions of people through starvation and murder.
There are no redeeming qualities of socialism.
No, that's a complete lie. It has never resulted in the death of anyone, but rather has saved millions of lives and improved their - and our - standards of living.
But then, you don't actually know what socialism is, so you just make up lies for the evil boogyman hiding in your closet.