Better than UBI: Solving Real Community Issues.
People (especially people with govern-cement-deep-state backing) are still pushing the idea that UBI (universal basic income) will be the savior of people without jobs. Because the robots are coming, and will take everyone's jobs. They still will not talk about how they plan to implement this wealth redistribution scheme.
Further, they do not wish to even discuss the real issues. They assume everyone has a 100 IQ, and that, given money, will know what to do with it, how to handle it, and can get off the street on their own. That money is the only problem.
I have repeatedly stated that providing basic housing, food and clothing is the best and cheapest way to provide the basics.
Money can and will always attract scammers. And there isn't a govern-cement system that can't be hacked... because they are hacked from the beginning. Just watch some Catherine Austin Fitts videos to hear about the corruption... no, not corruption, that would imply that it started off as something good, hear about the public scam that is the Housing and Urban Development. Catherine talks about how they were building houses for low income people, when they had a ton of houses already on their books.
Money attracts scammers, because you can always use more money. But, if what you give out is a room where you can stay warm and dry, food and clothing, there isn't a person who can be in two rooms at once, or comfortably wear more than two sets of clothing. Nor can they eat more than their body can handle. Any waste is minimal and self regulating.
Further, there have been many times when a city has taken a development that went bad, and decided to turn it into a low income housing. So, all the people that paid good hard money for the first part of the condo development, are rightfully upset that the govern-cement is just giving away the same thing that they paid for.
Communities can solve the real problems.
I would suggest that our local communities get together and build a tiny house for each and every person in their communities.
Thus, with a one time investment, a tiny investment per person, we could solve the housing crisis. We can start going back to having actual decent rent laws. And house prices should fall to a level that people would actually pay for.
People can be evicted easily, because they have somewhere else they can go. The police hate evicting people. They have to show up and throw everything out of the house, destroy whatever lives were there. But if they don't do that, then the people who rent houses are asked to just give up an entire house. So, if there was a place that people can go if they run out of money, then the police basically show up with a moving truck and move them into an empty unit. Not out on the street.
So, not only does the community gain by getting people off the streets, they gain by not having the police do depression inducing things. Not to mention all the problems associated with public bathrooms and cleaning up areas that homeless congregate.
UBI would allow people to "choose" where they lived.
The proponents of UBI feel that this idea is bad, because you won't be able to choose your room. But, should we, as a society, really be paying for people to have a choice? Beggars can't be choosers. And, if you really do not like the FREE room you get, you can always find some way to make money so you can move into an apartment. Apartment rents will probably be really cheap, because all the cheapskates are living in free rooms.
Further, there will be blocks of units all over the place. Different towns, and different suburbs will have a huge variety of units. I am sure that a group of geeks will all congregate in one, a group of musicians will all congregate in another. Like attracts like, and areas just tend to work out that way. So, there will be all kinds of choice anyway.
I am sure there will be earth packed tire units, units built from shipping containers, units built out of concrete block and stainless steel (because free renters are often hard on their surroundings) and probably units built of the 2x4s and plywood (the "normal" method"). Providing even more choice.
Free units is not a cure for everything... unfortunately
The only real problem with this plan is that there are people who do not need just a room, they need medical / psychiatric help. But, we stopped paying for that and threw them out on the street. We really should set up communities for such people that really can't live on their own. However, just building units where they can stay warm and dry is a HUGE step up from what we are doing now.
What we are doing now is taking housing from all the people and giving it to about a quarter of the population. And, we are not buying them, we are renting them. So, we are taking a quarter of everyone's money and throwing it away every year. When, for less than a year's cost of what we spend now, we could make sure ALL the people have a dry, warm room they can go to. And this is a huge step up.
Ultimately, the problem that comes with any collective (unearned) pool of resources is that people maximize their removal of resources and minimize their addition of resources. Just because abuse is a foregone conclusion doesn't mean that this system wouldn't be vastly more economic than the current one (at least until cronyism develops a new system to exploit it). A non-governmental solution would be preferable.
It is indeed how you say. People will try to scam the system, unless they have skin in the game.
I haven't figured out a way to get a person who would... unreliably pick up trash, at their best, to have skin in the game.
So, I have worked out the best way of giving to everyone, the best and the worst, the bare minimums at the bare minimum cost to everyone.
I've read FBI. Nevermind :D
Yes, the Federal End-table of Intimidation should have much written about the stuff they wish to keep buried. However, this is not such an article.
You make some valid points here in this post. The elites just want power and controll. They don’ really care about much else. We could all rot in hell, turn on each other or most anything as long as their own purposes have been met. Having somewhere like a room for each person to stay in is a great idea, but selling it might be a different story. 🐓🐓
It is the kind of thing I would sell to a community.
And, there are going to be a lot of crypto millionaires that may invest in such a project.
So, I am trying to put these ideas out there, and as the world becomes more compassionate, we will start building such things with or without the govern-cement.
A more compassionate world would be a dream come true. I understand your point and support your idea. Why don’t you start it yourself on here? Big project. Going to take some big crypto. It could definately work. 🐓🐓
UBI would mean global servitude. I really despise the idea, however well the intentions might be...
I very much agree. It would not raise the poor out of the ghettos, it would turn what's left of the middle class into the slums. Where everyone is equally poor, unless you can make better than six figures. Not to mention the control mechanisms that would be tied to it, making, as you said, global servitude.
Agreed that we don't need UBI. The tiny houses should be privately funded as well. Unfortunately in one instance the government shut down such a private endeavor by a musician in LA. He built a bunch of tiny houses with private charitable contributions and scattered them throughout the city in vacant public lots and under freeway overpasses, even in parking spaces on the street. They were mobile so if they became a problem they could be moved. It was actually working. It gave many homeless a chance to get cleaned up enough to find a job and keep their few possessions from getting destroyed by theft and exposure to the elements.
The city saw what they were doing was working, saw that they had no credit to take for it and no taxes to collect on it, then went about removing them all and destroying them. I think some fines might even have been levied. Now most California cities are a cesspool of homeless feces because so many are living in the streets. If they'd just let this guy go about solving the homeless situation for them without any government interference we might not have such a problem right now.
Here's a link to one of the stories about it. https://reason.com/reasontv/2016/12/09/los-angeles-homeless-tiny-houses
Yes, I saw those stories. And it is sad what LA did.
But, it puts paid onto the idea that even local govern-cements are pure evil.
And, it is really sad, that all i get is sad when i hear about LA destroying these tiny shelters.
It should make me furious... but then i realize the stupidity of getting angry over something i cannot control...
anyway, i look towards ways of redoing the entire system.
My ideas, like above, would start with the community. And basically, the city govern-cement would have to upset everyone to undo what we did.
Or, maybe i encourage some millenials to run for city positions, and just take over.
A couple decades ago, PDX had a real estate problem. Houses in the inner city were selling for less than $10K cash, and neighborhoods were suffering from the CIA supplied crack epidemic.
I penciled out buying entire city blocks of such houses, at an average cost of ~$30K per unit, and leveling them all. Then build an earth-sheltered structure with multiple units (as many as I'd leveled, or more) of about 5k square feet, just concrete boxes with patios that were supplied with utilities, which could be finished inside per customer needs.
If I had a monopoly on utilities, and gave the units away for free (not title, but rent) I'd make money. Commercial space fronting the parking would be leasable at nominal cost, for those folks needing more space for business purposes. Particularly using solar and wind where applicable. Plenty of wind in winter and sun in summer in PDX. By composting organic wastes, and recycling, most waste issues would go away, including sewer. I realized it would be best to NOT have a central sewer system, but individual composting setups, so that people wouldn't be stuffing in crap that didn't belong in there, like paint, cigarette butts, kitty litter, etc. If they did that to their own systems, no one else would suffer the consequences, and they'd have to (pay to) fix it themselves, which would quickly teach them to do it right.
As the whole block would be earth-sheltered, it would essentially become a park, gardens, even wildlands, where appropriate. Other than keeping the grounds tidy, there'd be no ongoing expense for paint and maintenance on the exterior. With nominal investment in robust infrastructure, maintenance costs would be minimal, mostly for parking and tending to utilities, or upgrading them as technology potentiated.
Had I been interested in making money, I probably could have funded some experiments, but people are skeptical of folks doing stuff for free. The very idea horrifies banks. Permitting and utilities were really the impassible impediments. Composting toilets are still not possible, AFAIK, even though they work impeccably when properly designed, and instead of costing money, produce superb fertilizer which is a salable good.
I bring this up because instead of trying to cut corners and do things as cheaply as possible, my goal was to improve the quality of life of the tenants to the highest degree possible, and turn inner city wastelands into parks and natural areas. 5k square feet is a lot bigger than three bedroom apartments with a garage. Plenty of room for whatever folks wanted to include inside.
Instead of rows of cells in warehouses, everyone would live in a park. With proper design (courtyard, with central underground parking) everyone could have a private patio with a secluded country view, yet their neighbors would be just next door.
Rather than scarcity, think abundance.
Thanks!
I have thought often of such buildings.
The interesting thing about underground structures is that you can stack them, without anyone even knowing. Just have the front patio face a different direction.
And, as you say, the money just works a lot differently.
Normal stick built house = bank gets paid forever, large maintenance, and high utility bills forever.
Building earth ships with real money (like bitcoin) = paid for as soon as built, low maintenance and low utility bills.
It is a complete paradigm shift.
And simpler as well. This is why I don't buy in to the 'we must reduce population' paradigm. We don't have too many people. People are the only way to get anything cool done.
We have shit management. The very underlying paradigm of civic and residential development is bass-ackwards, the focus being on profits, rather than the product--quality of life.
I don't know if there is an actual upward limit for the number of people that can live sustainably on this planet, or any other, but it's never going to be reached until that paradigm changes.
Thanks!
There is an upward limit, but it is not in the realms of land area, amount of air, nor in the quantity of food. There is a spiritual limit, and i don't know how to put it into words.
We currently build houses as cheap as possible, because that is all that people can "afford". The real issues are that the banks suck everything dry, so of course there is only the minimum to build. Further, the banks go out of their way to NOT fund housing improvements.
Its like upgrading the counter tops to granite will pay for itself, adding extra insulation won't even budge the price. So, there is a problem on the consumer side too.
I see a time soon when enough earthships are built, and energy becomes wicked expensive, that people will see that building an earthship is cheaper than the heating bill.
The future looks exciting. (looks around for a rock to hide under)
The “system” wants people to rely upon the “system” this is done for power and control. It’s a frog in boiling water. That is not life ....it’s survival. It’s a dark way we are fighting.
If only the world were that simple, lol
Oh, it is THAT simple.
Build a house. done.