LogFAQs > #969514879

chelsea___wtf posted...

this is not an issue for local SF politics in my experience. like ofc this is not going to go anywhere at the state/federal level tho

This is true, but I'm still concerned that it will build resentment to the idea (which many people already resent because they're brainwashed into believing that it's better to punish the homeless than to give them homes they "don't deserve" even though that would be cheaper and more effective) by establishing it as fringe "wokeness" for "virtue-signalling lefties." SF's municipal politics aren't likely to change much because the city already leans pretty far left, but I could see it hurting things on a broader scale.

There's also a very real chance that this is just a matter of being able to claim that they tried to experiment with UBI and found that it made little difference, citing that as a reason to not try it on any larger scale when proponents bring it up. It's obviously doomed to failure (or at least to be a very minor success at best), but for people that are already against the idea (including most politicians, even in left-leaning areas, because the fantasy of punishing the homeless is apparently pretty addictive), that failure is just more ammunition.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

meanwhile people literally shit in streets/sidewalks/near businesses... guess that's not a higher priority.

Putting aside the fact that that problem isn't nearly as prevalent as far-right pundits would have you believe, do you think guaranteed income wouldn't help with that problem? That people who can afford to not live on the street wouldn't find somewhere more comfortable to poop?