• TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I love that, I truly do. Giving people a chance instead of trying to get rid of them. But what about those on the verge of homelessness? I work my ass off 5 to 6 days a week year round and I can barely afford a studio apartment. And I make like $3,000+ a month. If I lost one of my jobs and couldn’t find another I’d be homeless in just a couple months. I like this as a step forward but we need to solve the issue of rent. I’d be able to put a down payment on a house within a couple years if I didn’t sink 75% of my income towards rent. I’ve often thought of just living out of my car for a few years just to do so

    • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      You help some from needing support, so that you can free up resources to help the next batch.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It only worked every time it had been tried. But that’s of course no reason to make this a general policy. That would be common sense, we don’t do that here!

    • athairmor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      It didn’t actually work, though.

      As someone else pointed out—and the article was updated to say, the people getting money didn’t fair significantly better than the control group.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    First thing I asked myself from this headline was “what about the people in the control group” and sure enough, there’s no significant difference according to the note at the start of the article.

  • yggstyle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is neat and all but let’s take a moment to consider all that this is doing is subsidizing landlords who are charging too much. If Denver were to impose a rent cap or punish gouging - housing would be more affordable for the impoverished and everyone else. More money to spend means a better local economy. Subsidizing just emboldens the landlords to continue to raise rent and pull more money out of the economy.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fun selfishness brag. It’s cheaper to house people then anything else if you don’t want to have taxes actually be used to help people because you’re obscenely cheap then still support housing because again it’s fiscally conservative.

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      in vuvuzela they make everyone use the same toothbrush and only party leaders get to rinse first