What lifestyle should the least advantaged expect?

Great Debates
1

I was speaking with a couple of very impoverished people the other day who were seeking disability benefits. And I got to wondering about, even if they got the benefits (>$12k a year), what would their lives be like? These were older persons (>50) in a large northern-midwestern city.

So I thought I’d toss it out to you folk. Whatever your political leanings, how do you envision the lifestyle of the least fortunate among you? Placed this in GD, tho it might be better for IMHO. But I thought it might turn to how any lifestyle were supported. And some folk might think the poor ought to starve on the streets.

How do you envision a relatively unsophisticated, uneducated person, possibly with health problems, living? Let’s assume a single person, aged 30-60. Income of $1000/month, and some rent, food, and healthcare subsidies. And assume a location that gets somewhat cold in the winter - Say St Louis of further N.

Should they have a cellphone? A TV? A private apartment? Cooking facilities? Private bathroom? Choice of neighborhood/city in which to live? Should they be allowed to live in public spaces?

I’m not advancing any particular point of view. Just wondering how different people envision the poorest among us living. And then, possibly, how that lifestyle gets paid for. Eager to hear from folk outside the US as well.

Personally, I think I would favor something more along the lines of a shelter/dormitory w/ cafeteria meals - with an emphasis on health and safety over personal choice.

2

IMO, we as a society are wealthy enough to ensure the disadvantaged among us have the following, and we should ensure this is accomplished:

*Reasonably nutritious food (i.e. rice, beans, canned/frozen veggies/fruit, occasional meat/fish/eggs/dairy and fresh fruit/veggies)
*Health care
*A safe and temperature-controlled (>60 F in winter, <80 F in summer) place to sleep with some minimum level of privacy (like a dormitory, perhaps)
*A few changes of clothes and underwear
*Sanitary and working bathroom/laundry facilities
*Access to a library and basic internet facilities (a computer lab)

I’ll note that most of this is provided to imprisoned felons, at considerable expense to taxpayers. In my understanding, we could ensure this was provided to disadvantaged folks for considerably less, per capita, then we spend on prisoners.

3

IMHO some kind of stable indoor shelter, healthy meals, clean water, and basic medical care are the bare minimum. Having some kind of basic (less than $50) cell phone would probably be of benefit in providing those basics if only to coordinate things with the people providing those bare minimum services so I would include that. As for some of the other things you mention, here’s what I think. A TV would not be included. A shared bathroom is adequate. Choice of neighborhood is a tougher one. I think having a list of apartments in different areas is fine, but that doesn’t mean that all areas have to be represented.

4

I agree with **iiandyiiii **here. I find it ridiculous that the richest country in the history of the world cannot provide this basic list of items to every citizen.

5

I’d largely second what **iiandyiiii **said. But for clarification, are you asking what the government should be providing to them directly, or just a general question about what their lives should look like, with or without government assistance?

6

I envision a basic lifestyle free of coercion and victimization. That requires a few things:

  • a place to be that is entirely your own including a place to sleep and enjoy quiet recreation (such as TV)
  • nutritious food to eat
  • access to clean bathing facilities
  • access to the internet
  • clothing and access to laundry facilities
  • health care
7

This is a key part that I left out – safety is essential.

8

I agree, but that does open up a whole other can of worms. Sure safety can mean protection from a blizzard or hurricane or bad wiring that can cause a house fire. Those are all important. It also means protection from fellow people who are violent, and that gets into criminal justice reform as well as basic welfare. My opinion is that the current problem with the system is that we punish the non-violent people way to harshly and the violent people not harshly enough.

9

Our current system involves the payment of cash benefits and subsidies/vouchers for food, rent, utilities. These all come from various sources - federal, state, township… Universal income proposals seem to suggest a cash payment.

It seems as though the responders so far support more of an “in kind” provision of services instead of cash payments. Essentially a number of government run/subsidized dorms/SROs/shelters… Is that correct? I tend to agree. I agree, though, that health and safety would be paramount (AND expensive!)

What do you suggest for people who decline such services? Give them a cash payment? How much? Let them die? Kill them? :wink:

10

Have all people who decline fight it out until a lone champion remains?

11

In my experience these people tend to be the street homeless and end up that way due to mental illness. If someone is capable of providing for themselves, then they aren’t the least advantaged. If they aren’t, and end up on the street due to mental illness, I have a solution, although it isn’t politically correct. I think it’s time we bring back long term institutional care for the mentally ill for those folks. I have direct experience with many of these people, providing care in the short term psychiatric setting. What happens is they get discharged, go back to the streets due to declining services, and end back up in the psych hospital a few weeks later. The cycle then repeats itself. The only way out that I see for those folks is long term psychiatric care, which these days basically doesn’t exist, at least not in the US.

12

In my vision of a society where poverty is dignified, everyone would be guaranteed at least 350 sq ft of clean, safe living quarters, whether it is an apartment or detached dwelling. A private toilet and shower and a kitchenette (stove, oven, sink, and fridge) would be a part of this.

Would everyone be able to live in whatever town or city they want? No, though there would be some rubric used to help people maintain their roots. So if a person has been born and raised within a specific metro area, they get prioritized for housing within that area over someone who just moved there last year. If it is important for you to live in the same apartment building as your parents and grandparents, then you would put your name on a waitlist. In the meantime, you can just make do with living on the other side of town.

In my vision, public housing would only be available in zip codes that have a critical mass of middle- and upper-middle class residents. If you want to live in an isolated holler somewhere where there are no libraries, grocery stores, hospitals, or social services, too bad. The state will pay for moving costs if you want to escape an economically dead or dying. But it will not help you stay there.

In my pragmatic utopia, there would be guaranteed nutrition. Every healthy adult gets a monthly allotment of assistance (vouchers) that is sufficient to maintain a nutritonally-balanced daily caloric intake of 2200 calories/day. You can get more than that if you have an eligible medical diagnosis. If you want more than that, partner up with a person who doesn’t eat a lot.

Re cell phones and internet. It is hard to do anything without a cell phone and internet nowadays. So I am OK with folks who live in public housing being automatically eligible for basic, no-frill cell phone and internet plans.

Would poor people get cash for discretionary spending in my dream world? Not if they are a single able-bodied adult and there are plenty of job opportunities. But all poor parents of dependent children would be granted a stipend so their kids are properly cared for beyond just the basics of survival. And there would be free and widely accessible medical care for everyone.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

13

A century ago we had a solution. Only after the socialist reform called ‘Social Security’ did we abandon that approach. Now that we are Making America Great Again we should be be able to regain our lost glory :dubious:

14

I think there are two types of people who end up on the lowest rung of poverty those who are disabled and those who choose to be there. Being disabled is a medical condition and should be treated as such under a universal healthcare system. If someone is mentally or physically incapable of living independently they should be institutionalized and cared for in a situation where they get their own space, internet access and broadcast television though they are probably recieving cafeteria meals and group laundry due to their disability. These people should have their UBI used to help pay for the facility.

The people who are capable of living independently may need some help from the health care side even if it is a subsidy to pay for a larger appartment with wider halls or a particular bathroom set up. Beyond that we should expect people to be able to afford a studio appartment in a medium sized city of say 750,000 people (Little Rock, Ar is probably decent for this discussion) which seem to be about $420. They need to be able to feed themselves 3 nutritious meals per day I’d guess $10/day is probably sufficient for another 300/month. They need some way to communicate with the outside world either a land line or cell phone and $50 is sufficient. Transportation should be paid for as well and $200 per month should even cover buying a car. They need to be able to afford some amount of recreation and whether is it television or going to the movies or whatever should be their choice but $80/ month seems reasonable. I would prefer to let the people choose if they would rather get a bus pass and eat better food or if buying a nicer car is their entertainment so I’d prefer to give them a UBI payment of $1,000-$1,100 per month to cover these needs how ever they like.

15

Absolutely they should have a cell phone. If they fail within certain financial guidelines, they’re eligible for a free cell phone with 350 free minutes, unlimited texts, and up to 3 Gb of data per month. Having a SNAP account or an income of more than 135% below the federal poverty line are qualifiers, for example.

16

Everybody seems to be assuming that poverty implies homelessness. Are you all proposing to take people who are living in places they may have spent 10 or 30 or 50 years in, but who are no longer capable of paying the property taxes/rent in addition to paying for their food and their medical bills and whatever else is required to minimally take care of themselves, and to tell them that in order to get any help at all they’re going to have to go live in a barracks? including cases in which that will separate them from friends, family, commensal animals, and the kitchen gardens which are helping to feed them?

I suspect that this would, in multiple ways, wind up costing far more than assisting people to stay in their own homes.

17

The question was about those with the most disadvantages. The scenario you describe is for someone with a lot of, but not quite the most, disadvantages. As far as someone in you’re scenario, I would give that person a break on their property taxes* and as I and others have mentioned also provide assistance with food, clean water, and medical care.

*. Only people in genuine hardship need apply. The millionaire who lost his money in the stock market need not apply for this break.

18

I get your point. But I really think poor people in economically depressed areas need to be encouraged to get out there, especially if they have kids. So while I support assistance to “shelter in place”, I would stronglt support a program that would assist people with getting set up to a location with better job and educational opportunities.

Here is my beef with UBI: If I own a house but I am otherwise broke, getting $1000 a month is awesome. But if I am a renter and I can’t keep up with rising rents and all the available housing in my city is suddenly $1K or more, what am I going to do? I am going to be homeless, which is worse than just being broke. So that is why I want guranteed housing before UBI.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

19

I am assuming we’re talking about able-bodied and mental well people - the disabled are a different issue I’ll address in a bit.

I agree with iiandyiiii about some of his minimums so I borrowed freely, but here’s my list for able bodied mentally healthy people as a rock-bottm:

200 square feet per person living space total. (As a comparison - my very first studio apartment was about that including closet and bath so I have some experience with this). For a single person that would probably be a studio apartment. For a two adult family with four kids that’s around 1200 square feet (because there’s six people). I don’t care if that’s government sponsored, or if you give the folks a voucher to rent from a private landlord (remember - we’re talking about able-bodied mentally well people, which to my mind excludes alcoholics, drug addicts, non-functional mentally ill, etc.) Studio apartments would have at least a toilet, sink, and small shower. Family units should have a little bit larger sanitary facilities, in other words, if you have a family group I would rule out a bath tub.

Medically necessary health care.

A safe and temperature-controlled (>60 F in winter, <80 F in summer) place to sleep. Depending on climate that would require heating or cooling, and certainly a lock on the door.

Access to nutritious food and a means to cook it. I’m OK with the current SNAP program in the US, although there could be some tweaks. I like it a lot better than handing out food to the poor. There should be a kitchenette of some sort - sink, stove, fridge, small pantry/storage - but it doesn’t have to be lavish.

Access to personal toiletries/cleaning products/etc. Can’t use food stamps for toilet paper although if you eat you will at some point need toilet paper. I’m totally OK with a monthly stipend for this sort of thing, on par with what’s done for food.

Adequate clothing for the climate and work they do, plus at least one casual and one more dressed up outfit. So in northern areas that would mean winter coat/gloves/hat as well as regular clothing. Two pairs of shoes, or a pair of shoes and a pair of boots per year. Also adequate bed linens, towels, etc.

Access to laundry facilities

Basic phone and internet access. Because good luck applying for a job these days without one. Also, useful for contacting social service agencies, keeping in touch with family and friends, entertainment, etc.

Those are minimums. If a particular individual acquires a TV (donation, saves their pennies, gift from someone, doesn’t matter) I don’t care. If they can save up and by themselves another pair of shoes, or convince an apartment building manager to let them garden out back that’s fine. I don’t care if they have a book case or a few personal possessions. They’re poor, not prisoners. If they work odd jobs or a few hours a week so they can get themselves the occasional goody I’m fine with that.

Now, for the disabled/frail elderly they might need consolidated housing - they’d have a studio apartment, but access to, say, laundry or cleaning services or food services (like meals on wheels) that would probably have to be at least somewhat subsidized but in that case it would be people who qualify for those services.

For the mentally ill/chemically dependent/intellectually impaired other types of housing might be more appropriate. There are mentally ill people who really would be better off in long-term inpatient housing. We might not want drug addicts cooking, so more of a controlled living situation with a cafeteria type food service. I’d have to think a bit more about those situations.

20

Move to a lower cost of living city or town or share housing with someone else.