• 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.

  • Scubus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Honestly if it means guaranteed housing(which it doesn’t) then I’d be down with that. It’s better than getting fleeced with no house.

      • Scubus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, but I have to imagine it’s superior to a cardboard box or a bridge

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          It’s fine, but it depends on upkeep. Just like any other housing. It was a good idea, but needs funding (like roads, bridges, etc.).

          Plenty of people live in unmaintained apartments owned by slumlords, but nobody’s saying “look at how bad private housing is!” Few people (dummies) say “look how bad public roads are!” and advocate private toll roads and bridges.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            We have all the money we need to fund such projects, provided we stop running eight wars at once abroad and then paying for other countries’ wars too.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              10 months ago

              You are thinking too small and distracting from the main point here. From a strictly economic standpoint, we have enough money to do all these things.

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

            Being bad in one place doesn’t mean it’s bad everywhere. I’m sorry you had a bad experience but elsewhere the government functions as a renter of last resort with properties all over the place. What’s bad is the high rise projects that were made to corral poor minorities and cut them off from the rest of society.