• A guaranteed-basic-income program in Austin gave people $1,000 a month for a year.
  • Most of the participants spent the no-strings-attached cash on housing, a study found.
  • Participants who said they could afford a balanced meal also increased by 17%.

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.

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    9 months ago

    And if everyone got this, rents would mysteriously increase by $1000 …

    Fuck these landlords.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Rents are being driven up by illegal collaboration anyways. This just like the inflation argument against minimum wage increases. Prices going up is not an argument against giving people more money. Prices will go up anyways.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Or you could just have prices not go up, and also give people value through strong nationalized programs i.e. public healthcare, public transport, nationalized housing…

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Price controls have uhh not gone well historically. Usually they lead to an explosion in the black market and a supply shortage in the normal market. Things stop falling off of trucks because the entire truck is gone. So until we figure out a better way of transferring goods, we’re stuck with money and prices that can be manipulated.

          But I agree with the rest of that. Strong government social supports are a great way to rein in the private markets. Having trouble with housing availability? What if Housing and Urban Development (HUD) buys land, builds something, and rents the units at cost? Why is that not an option? Why isn’t there an Online USA University run by Department of Education? Is an opt in government health plan really that scary?

          Can we not have one nice thing?

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I was not talking about price controls. I don’t know of the USA but government buybacks of housing stock have helped relieve some of the pressure in Europe as well as purpose built high quality housing like in Vienna.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Ah yes that would be a good thing to do. In the US though people think the government can’t be allowed to compete with private business. So we’ll never have anything like that

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      This trope is dumb and you should feel bad for repeating it. It shows a truly shocking lack of insight into even the most basic middle-school-level economic principles.

      • Black616Angel@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        In germany we had a 10k€ bonus for all buyers of an electric car. After the bonus ended, all the cars suddenly cost 7k-10k less in about 2 months.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          I would argue that this is an example of how the reduction of consumer demand caused companies to lower their prices, unless there was an increase of 7k-10k when the program started as well.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          So a subsidy on a specific product category affected prices on that category? That doesn’t prove anything about UBI. UBI isn’t a subsidy on rent—or a subsidy at all—so your example is irrelevant.

    • nibble4bits@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      We all know that if this was a permanent part of the program, every revolving bill (mortgage, utilties, etc.) would all of a sudden rise to get a piece of that extra income. But because this was a temporary program, it probably only increased by the normal rate. So people mostly got a chance to use it without businesses getting greedier.