• solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      I don’t know how that math really works though. Lots of homeless also have serious physical and mental health problems, addictions, and other issues. Housing is a first step but after that a lot more costs remain. Are those included in the $42K? And remember, California is more expensive than many other states, especially in the cities with lots of homelessness.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      But UBI of a fraction of that, that would probably get better results, is somehow a bad use of money?

      • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        30 days ago

        It’s two different problems. UBI helps with poverty, and a lot of other social spending. Give everyone enough money for rent and tomorrow the price of rent is higher than what you’re giving them. Housing is supply restricted, increasing the demand only makes it worse. What we need is a serious building spree.