Out of all those linked, only the programs in Namibia and Iran actually seem to apply to everyone in the designated area. Even then, I don’t think the folks in the Namibian village are really worried about paying rent for their shanty town shacks, from the way it’s portrayed in the cited article. I don’t know enough about Iran to comment there. That aside, the remaining examples are pretty limited in their scope and mostly target poor people.
Recivitas has been running a privately funded basic income for a small, impoverished rural community in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil for three years now. Recivitas was founded and is run by Bruna Augusto Pereira and Marcus Vinicius Brancaglione. The project pays 30 Brazilian Reias (about US$15) per month to people in the community of Quatinga Velho, Sao Paulo, Brazil. This amount of money sounds very small to people from industrialized countries, but it has a large impact in a rural area of Brazil.
Sounds impressive, but not so much when you actually look it up to see only 67 people were getting paid under the program. Even less impressive when you consider Quatinga as a district has a population of 3,762 people, and the whole district consists of the town of Quantiga and two smaller settlements.
Mincome likewise wasn’t universal, just targeting lower-income residents in the test sites.
The remaining cases more or less list out their restrictions on the page you linked to.
It’s a significant for would-be scummy landlords. If everyone in the UK were to start receiving an unconditional £1,000/month, or everyone in the state of New Jersey gets $1,600/month, landlords would know that everyone has the money to pay if they raise the rent to cover the majority of this payment. If it’s only poor people getting it, this becomes harder to be able to pull off and not just wind up with vacant units. Especially when you’re talking about miniscule payments like R$ 30. Even in the sticks in Brazil, that’s not putting a real dent in anyone’s rent. Granted, it’s not apples to oranges, but R$ 30 in São Paulo gets you a plain hamburger. Like, it doesn’t even get you halfway to buying a pizza.
Yes, I am familiar with price elasticity. Are you familiar with the last several decades of parasitic behavior from landlords and the real estate industry? Everyone needs a place to live, and unless there are regulations put in place to limit their anti-social behavior, these group would certainly do their best to bleed us dry of as much as they could if they knew everyone suddenly had increased income. We aren’t building housing at anywhere near the rate we need to, especially housing that would be affordable to the working class. They know they have us over a barrel for this in many ways, and will abuse us in every way they can without running afoul of legal repercussions.
Yes, on a city/province level. Are you familiar with elasticity as it pertains to supply and demand curves?
Out of all those linked, only the programs in Namibia and Iran actually seem to apply to everyone in the designated area. Even then, I don’t think the folks in the Namibian village are really worried about paying rent for their shanty town shacks, from the way it’s portrayed in the cited article. I don’t know enough about Iran to comment there. That aside, the remaining examples are pretty limited in their scope and mostly target poor people.
Sounds impressive, but not so much when you actually look it up to see only 67 people were getting paid under the program. Even less impressive when you consider Quatinga as a district has a population of 3,762 people, and the whole district consists of the town of Quantiga and two smaller settlements.
Mincome likewise wasn’t universal, just targeting lower-income residents in the test sites.
The remaining cases more or less list out their restrictions on the page you linked to.
It’s a significant for would-be scummy landlords. If everyone in the UK were to start receiving an unconditional £1,000/month, or everyone in the state of New Jersey gets $1,600/month, landlords would know that everyone has the money to pay if they raise the rent to cover the majority of this payment. If it’s only poor people getting it, this becomes harder to be able to pull off and not just wind up with vacant units. Especially when you’re talking about miniscule payments like R$ 30. Even in the sticks in Brazil, that’s not putting a real dent in anyone’s rent. Granted, it’s not apples to oranges, but R$ 30 in São Paulo gets you a plain hamburger. Like, it doesn’t even get you halfway to buying a pizza.
Yes, I am familiar with price elasticity. Are you familiar with the last several decades of parasitic behavior from landlords and the real estate industry? Everyone needs a place to live, and unless there are regulations put in place to limit their anti-social behavior, these group would certainly do their best to bleed us dry of as much as they could if they knew everyone suddenly had increased income. We aren’t building housing at anywhere near the rate we need to, especially housing that would be affordable to the working class. They know they have us over a barrel for this in many ways, and will abuse us in every way they can without running afoul of legal repercussions.