• Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    I know someone who is homeless and sheltering them (in shit conditions) is costing the local council almost twice as much per month as just giving them an apartment.

      • Armand1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        The councils pay landlords for 1 room in a 8+ room house.

        In the area I’m thinking of, this costs £900 (or $1100) a month. For comparison,

        • Council flats (1 person flat) cost £500-600/month
        • Market rate for apartments is £1000 / month.

        I think the absurd rate being charged for abysmal conditions is partially rationalised by the fact that it’s paid to those landlords on a daily basis, but it’s obviously completely inefficient.

        I don’t want to go into the horrors of being in a homeless shelter, but it would be better for everyone involved if housing was more accessible.

        • MangoCats@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Rent by the hour does tend to be more expensive…

          Taking a tangent: with reliable UBI the homeless and poor would have enough of their own money to reliably pay for whatever type of shelter they desire, whether that’s a standard apartment, or a bed in a big shelter dormitory for less per night, but either way: they would have a reliable source of income to pay for it with, instead of having to scrounge needs-tested welfare + whatever else they can scrape together.

          • Armand1@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            It may also be cheaper for the government as they wouldn’t need to spend so much on bureaucracy trying to figure out whether someone deserves money.

            • MangoCats@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              All in all UBI would be a huge win, the poor could do more with a STABLE small income than they do with the unreliable sources most of them operate off of now. The whole needs testing bureaucracy can just die, saving Billions in administrative costs. Services and stores for low income people could do much better when their clientele has reliable income instead of being flat broke most of the time.

              In my view, if UBI is good enough, there’s no more need for minimum wage, let people volunteer if they want to, pay to work in some highly desirable jobs, that’s fine.

              I believe the primary objection comes from the people who hire the poor, they can’t imagine people working without the imminent threat of starvation and homelessness. If that’s how your workplace operates, that needs to change. With UBI I believe a lot of workplaces would self-regulate better, because if they don’t their employees will just quit.