#rent subsidy

[aurianneor]

Price ceilings and price floors

Food, housing, energy, education, health and arms cannot be left to the market. We need to control prices.

These are not consumer goods. They are commodities essential to human needs. The very reason for civilization is to be able to provide these necessities. They are not goods to enrich a part of the population. People must be assured of being able to live with dignity within their grasp.

People don’t need charity, they need a fair price. They have the right to decent housing, to food in an environmentally-friendly way, to energy for heating, to education, to healthcare and to the right to defend themselves. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights)

The price of a artillary shell has quadrupled since the war in Ukraine. Arms dealers are taking advantage and cashing in on public money. The Iris-T missiles that defend Ukrainian cities cost €150,000 to manufacture, and the manufacturer sells them for €430,000 to the German government and $4,000,000 to the United States, even though there are no development costs.

Without price controls, city rents are becoming unaffordable for some groups of the population. Landlords set prices without limits. They created nothing, they invent nothing. They represent 75% of the political staff. They are heirs. A maximum price on rents would improve people’s lives, lighten the burden on businesses, smooth the links between town and country, and cut a passive income, a rent that gives these people too great an advantage to enter politics. This has an impact on representative democracy.

Farmers need to be able to sell their products at their true cost, not at a cost lowered by subsidies. Foreign producers have no chance of escaping poverty. Products are bought at ever lower prices and sold at ever higher prices. Every day, farmers wonder whether their incomes are going to go down the drain due to the ups and downs of the market. It’s ruining their families, and the risk of suicide has tripled. We can’t tolerate this. We have to buy at a decent price.

We need price controls on energy. You don’t have to pay when it’s too expensive. It shouldn’t be a private resource. It is defended by wars so that some can appropriate it for their own private ends. In 2022, electricity rose by a thousand percent. This was not due to higher production costs, but to speculation on the pretext of the war in Ukraine.

Education should not be an income. In the West, the average schooling costs $25,000 a year. This puts unmanageable pressure on students and leads to a drug epidemic the likes of which we’ve never seen. It enriches the banks. It affects equality of opportunity. There has to be a maximum price. Not education grants where public money goes straight into the schools’ pockets.

Social security no longer reimburses many medicines. It is conditional on salary and excludes immigrants. Health care is subsidized. Laboratories set their own prices, thus recovering public money that bears no relation to manufacturing and research costs. Many effective drugs are no longer produced, on the pretext that they are no longer profitable. The laboratories are very rich and live off public health, i.e. tax money, and block certain scientific discoveries on the pretext that they would be less profitable. For example, curing diabetes with a single injection is less profitable than a lifelong patient. Patents should be in the public domain. Research should be public and financed by money no longer collected by the laboratories.

At the end of the 60s, there were price controls on these six pillars. It was a command economy. A farmer in the United States could sell at the public granary when the market was not favorable.

In the 1970s, we moved to the welfare state, where the market sets prices and the community provides a subsidy so that individuals can pay. The Nixon administration set up the subsidy system to keep workers in a situation of begging to break strikes by making them dependent on the state.

The situation has become globalized, as middlemen buying American products at lower cost have forced other countries to align their prices by providing subsidies themselves. Workers are no longer independent; they are forced to comply with state requirements in order to receive subsidies. It’s a tool of control.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Le prix plafond et le prix plancher: https://www.aurianneor.org/le-prix-plafond-et-le-prix-plancher/

To give or not to give?: https://www.aurianneor.org/to-give-or-not-to-give-give-or-not-give-giving/

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed”.: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-world-has-enough-for-everyones-need-but-not/

Heaven For Everyone – Queen: https://www.aurianneor.org/heaven-for-everyone-queen-this-could-be-heaven/

Housing: https://www.aurianneor.org/housing/

Living with dignity: https://www.aurianneor.org/living-with-dignity/

Farmers will make butter: https://www.aurianneor.org/farmers-will-make-butter-too-many-producers-of/

Humiliated by the Republic: https://www.aurianneor.org/humiliated-by-the-republic/

Cut out the middleman: https://www.aurianneor.org/cut-out-the-middleman/

Drugs: https://www.aurianneor.org/drugs/

Rob the poor to feed the rich: https://www.aurianneor.org/rob-the-poor-to-feed-the-rich/

The pill umbrella: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-pill-umbrella-drug-research-went-from-the/

[m0llymauk-tealeaf]

capitalism is gonna kill me

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Tesla's Dieselgate

Elon Musk lies a lot. He lies about being a “utopian socialist.” He lies about being a “free speech absolutist.” He lies about which companies he founded:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cofounder-martin-eberhard-interview-history-elon-musk-ev-market-2023-2 He lies about being the “chief engineer” of those companies:

https://www.quora.com/Was-Elon-Musk-the-actual-engineer-behind-SpaceX-and-Tesla

He lies about really stupid stuff, like claiming that comsats that share the same spectrum will deliver steady broadband speeds as they add more users who each get a narrower slice of that spectrum:

https://www.eff.org/wp/case-fiber-home-today-why-fiber-superior-medium-21st-century-broadband

The fundamental laws of physics don’t care about this bullshit, but people do. The comsat lie convinced a bunch of people that pulling fiber to all our homes is literally impossible — as though the electrical and phone lines that come to our homes now were installed by an ancient, lost civilization. Pulling new cabling isn’t a mysterious art, like embalming pharaohs. We do it all the time. One of the poorest places in America installed universal fiber with a mule named “Ole Bub”:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-one-traffic-light-town-with-some-of-the-fastest-internet-in-the-us

Previous tech barons had “reality distortion fields,” but Musk just blithely contradicts himself and pretends he isn’t doing so, like a budget Steve Jobs. There’s an entire site devoted to cataloging Musk’s public lies:

https://elonmusk.today/

But while Musk lacks the charm of earlier Silicon Valley grifters, he’s much better than they ever were at running a long con. For years, he’s been promising “full self driving…next year.”

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/09/herbies-revenge/#100-billion-here-100-billion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

He’s hasn’t delivered, but he keeps claiming he has, making Teslas some of the deadliest cars on the road:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/

Tesla is a giant shell-game masquerading as a car company. The important thing about Tesla isn’t its cars, it’s Tesla’s business arrangement, the Tesla-Financial Complex:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/24/no-puedo-pagar-no-pagara/#Rat

Once you start unpacking Tesla’s balance sheets, you start to realize how much the company depends on government subsidies and tax-breaks, combined with selling carbon credits that make huge, planet-destroying SUVs possible, under the pretense that this is somehow good for the environment:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/14/for-sale-green-indulgences/#killer-analogy

But even with all those financial shenanigans, Tesla’s got an absurdly high valuation, soaring at times to 1600x its profitability:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/15/hoover-calling/#intangibles

That valuation represents a bet on Tesla’s ability to extract ever-higher rents from its customers. Take Tesla’s batteries: you pay for the battery when you buy your car, but you don’t own that battery. You have to rent the right to use its full capacity, with Tesla reserving the right to reduce how far you go on a charge based on your willingness to pay:

https://memex.craphound.com/2017/09/10/teslas-demon-haunted-cars-in-irmas-path-get-a-temporary-battery-life-boost/

That’s just one of the many rent-a-features that Tesla drivers have to shell out for. You don’t own your car at all: when you sell it as a used vehicle, Tesla strips out these features you paid for and makes the next driver pay again, reducing the value of your used car and transfering it to Tesla’s shareholders:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-autopilot-disabled-remotely-used-car-update

To maintain this rent-extraction racket, Tesla uses DRM that makes it a felony to alter your own car’s software without Tesla’s permission. This is the root of all autoenshittification:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

This is technofeudalism. Whereas capitalists seek profits (income from selling things), feudalists seek rents (income from owning the things other people use). If Telsa were a capitalist enterprise, then entrepreneurs could enter the market and sell mods that let you unlock the functionality in your own car:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/11/1-in-3/#boost-50

But because Tesla is a feudal enterprise, capitalists must first secure permission from the fief, Elon Musk, who decides which companies are allowed to compete with him, and how.

Once a company owns the right to decide which software you can run, there’s no limit to the ways it can extract rent from you. Blocking you from changing your device’s software lets a company run overt scams on you. For example, they can block you from getting your car independently repaired with third-party parts.

But they can also screw you in sneaky ways. Once a device has DRM on it, Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it a felony to bypass that DRM, even for legitimate purposes. That means that your DRM-locked device can spy on you, and because no one is allowed to explore how that surveillance works, the manufacturer can be incredibly sloppy with all the personal info they gather:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/29/tesla-model-3-keeps-data-like-crash-videos-location-phone-contacts.html

All kinds of hidden anti-features can lurk in your DRM-locked car, protected from discovery, analysis and criticism by the illegality of bypassing the DRM. For example, Teslas have a hidden feature that lets them lock out their owners and summon a repo man to drive them away if you have a dispute about a late payment:

https://tiremeetsroad.com/2021/03/18/tesla-allegedly-remotely-unlocks-model-3-owners-car-uses-smart-summon-to-help-repo-agent/

DRM is a gun on the mantlepiece in Act I, and by Act III, it goes off, revealing some kind of ugly and often dangerous scam. Remember Dieselgate? Volkswagen created a line of demon-haunted cars: if they thought they were being scrutinized (by regulators measuring their emissions), they switched into a mode that traded performance for low emissions. But when they believed themselves to be unobserved, they reversed this, emitting deadly levels of NOX but delivering superior mileage.

The conversion of the VW diesel fleet into mobile gas-chambers wouldn’t have been possible without DRM. DRM adds a layer of serious criminal jeopardy to anyone attempting to reverse-engineer and study any device, from a phone to a car. DRM let Apple claim to be a champion of its users’ privacy even as it spied on them from asshole to appetite:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Now, Tesla is having its own Dieselgate scandal. A stunning investigation by Steve Stecklow and Norihiko Shirouzu for Reuters reveals how Tesla was able to create its own demon-haunted car, which systematically deceived drivers about its driving range, and the increasingly desperate measures the company turned to as customers discovered the ruse:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-batteries-range/

The root of the deception is very simple: Tesla mis-sells its cars by falsely claiming ranges that those cars can’t attain. Every person who ever bought a Tesla was defrauded.

But this fraud would be easy to detect. If you bought a Tesla rated for 353 miles on a charge, but the dashboard range predictor told you that your fully charged car could only go 150 miles, you’d immediately figure something was up. So your Telsa tells another lie: the range predictor tells you that you can go 353 miles.

But again, if the car continued to tell you it has 203 miles of range when it was about to run out of charge, you’d figure something was up pretty quick — like, the first time your car ran out of battery while the dashboard cheerily informed you that you had 203 miles of range left.

So Teslas tell a third lie: when the battery charge reached about 50%, the fake range is replaced with the real one. That way, drivers aren’t getting mass-stranded by the roadside, and the scam can continue.

But there’s a new problem: drivers whose cars are rated for 353 miles but can’t go anything like that far on a full charge naturally assume that something is wrong with their cars, so they start calling Tesla service and asking to have the car checked over.

This creates a problem for Tesla: those service calls can cost the company $1,000, and of course, there’s nothing wrong with the car. It’s performing exactly as designed. So Tesla created its boldest fraud yet: a boiler-room full of anti-salespeople charged with convincing people that their cars weren’t broken.

This new unit — the “diversion team” — was headquartered in a Nevada satellite office, which was equipped with a metal xylophone that would be rung in triumph every time a Tesla owner was successfully conned into thinking that their car wasn’t defrauding them.

When a Tesla owner called this boiler room, the diverter would run remote diagnostics on their car, then pronounce it fine, and chide the driver for having energy-hungry driving habits (shades of Steve Jobs’s “You’re holding it wrong”):

https://www.wired.com/2010/06/iphone-4-holding-it-wrong/

The drivers who called the Diversion Team weren’t just lied to, they were also punished. The Tesla app was silently altered so that anyone who filed a complaint about their car’s range was no longer able to book a service appointment for any reason. If their car malfunctioned, they’d have to request a callback, which could take several days.

Meanwhile, the diverters on the diversion team were instructed not to inform drivers if the remote diagnostics they performed detected any other defects in the cars.

The diversion team had a 750 complaint/week quota: to juke this stat, diverters would close the case for any driver who failed to answer the phone when they were eventually called back. The center received 2,000+ calls every week. Diverters were ordered to keep calls to five minutes or less.

Eventually, diverters were ordered to cease performing any remote diagnostics on drivers’ cars: a source told Reuters that “Thousands of customers were told there is nothing wrong with their car” without any diagnostics being performed.

Predicting EV range is an inexact science as many factors can affect battery life, notably whether a journey is uphill or downhill. Every EV automaker has to come up with a figure that represents some kind of best guess under a mix of conditions. But while other manufacturers err on the side of caution, Tesla has the most inaccurate mileage estimates in the industry, double the industry average.

Other countries’ regulators have taken note. In Korea, Tesla was fined millions and Elon Musk was personally required to state that he had deceived Tesla buyers. The Korean regulator found that the true range of Teslas under normal winter conditions was less than half of the claimed range.

Now, many companies have been run by malignant narcissists who lied compulsively — think of Thomas Edison, archnemesis of Nikola Tesla himself. The difference here isn’t merely that Musk is a deeply unfit monster of a human being — but rather, that DRM allows him to defraud his customers behind a state-enforced opaque veil. The digital computers at the heart of a Tesla aren’t just demons haunting the car, changing its performance based on whether it believes it is being observed — they also allow Musk to invoke the power of the US government to felonize anyone who tries to peer into the black box where he commits his frauds.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/edison-not-tesla/#demon-haunted-world

This Sunday (July 30) at 1530h, I’m appearing on a panel at Midsummer Scream in Long Beach, CA, to discuss the wonderful, award-winning “Ghost Post” Haunted Mansion project I worked on for Disney Imagineering.

Image ID [A scene out of an 11th century tome on demon-summoning called 'Compendium rarissimum totius Artis Magicae sistematisatae per celeberrimos Artis hujus Magistros. Anno 1057. Noli me tangere.' It depicts a demon tormenting two unlucky would-be demon-summoners who have dug up a grave in a graveyard. One summoner is held aloft by his hair, screaming; the other screams from inside the grave he is digging up. The scene has been altered to remove the demon's prominent, urinating penis, to add in a Tesla supercharger, and a red Tesla Model S nosing into the scene.]

Image: Steve Jurvetson (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_Model_S_Indoors.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[thatskindasapphic]

Trying to build savings in this economy is fucking impossible. Like if its not groceries its rent or car payments or school or phone bills or vet appointments or the dentist or medication etc etc so my savings acct takes forever to make any progress. And then because all of my income is going to yk. Life. If I actually want anything non-essential like clothes, a video game, a book, a cool piece of art, etc I have to dip into my savings for it and it makes me feel guilty so I don't ever indulge. And like at this point what am I even saving for? The average cost of a house in my country is like what. $700,000 or more? I'm never going to have a job with an income that would qualify me for a mortage like that. So whats the point of saving anyways?? Ok I'm sorry for being pessimistic its ok everything will be fine. Rant over

[letmeliedown]

⚠️URGENT⚠️ please help me and my cat stay housed

june 12 - i need to find accessible housing by the end of june. i've been trying for a full year to get help from government agencies, social workers, nonprofits, etc with no luck. i've been promised help multiple times that has fallen through. i can't access rent subsidies until i have a new lease. if i somehow manage to find a place i will need a deposit ready to go immediately. i am chronically ill from being homeless multiple times and i won't survive another.

goal: $1500 for my half of a deposit, asap

p*yp*l: thelandofyesterday @ gmail dot com. anything helps 🩵

if you're in western canada and think you can help with my housing search, please message me.

my cat Toast is 13 and chronically ill on multiple meds. i really want to keep her with me.

[ajmeriaproperty]

RENT or LEASE OPTIONS 5000 sq ft INDUSTRIAL shed and 1.50 acres PLOT AT KUDUS WADA D+ ZONE MUMBAI

RENT or LEASE OPTIONS 5000 sq ft INDUSTRIAL shed and 1.50 acres PLOT AT KUDUS WADA D+ ZONE MUMBAI#sick #storage #park #patra #shed #industrial #gala #industrialshed #factory #dzone #subsidy #vadawli #wada #kudus #benefit #peb #rcc #rent #mankoli #bhiwandi #mumbai #india #forrent #rent #lease #resale #building #godown #warehousingPROPERTY Code : SZR84Plot Area : 1.50 ACRESShed AREA : 5,000 sq…

[trvthnvker]

if an american calls themselves an anticapitalist with no other qualifiers they mean they want universal healthcare and for doordash to be maintained as a public utility. if they say they're a socialist they want that and for the federal government to give partial subsidies to developers who agree to build apartment complexes where the rent will be 70% or lower of market price. if they say they're a communist that means they want all that and also for some military spending to be diverted to amtrak

[mariacallous]

It’s the most startling thing I’ve seen in this year’s presidential campaign – the astoundingly large gap between how young men and young women plan to vote this November. Among women under age 30, an overwhelming 67% plan to vote for Kamala Harris, while just 29% say they’ll back Donald Trump. But among young men, a majority – 53% – plan to vote for Trump, while 40% say they’ll support Harris, according to a New York Times/Sienna College poll. That’s an astonishing 51-percentage-point gender gap.

It’s easy to understand why so many young women favor Harris – she has an inspiring life story, champions reproductive freedom and would break the biggest glass ceiling of all by becoming the first female president. But I’m mystified why so many young men back Trump.

Many of them seem to like Trump’s machismo. They like that he talks tough. They see him as an icon of traditional manhood. But all this raises an unavoidable question: should Trump be looked to as an icon of manhood considering that he boasted of grabbing women’s genitals, was found liable for sexual assault and had an affair with an adult film star soon after his wife gave birth? That shouldn’t be anyone’s model of manhood.

Many young men seem to admire Trump’s king-of-the-jungle vibe: he roars, he bellows, he boasts that no one can ever beat him (unless they cheat). But when you cut through Trump’s tough talk and look at the record, it becomes clear that Trump did very little for young men in his four years as president.

Whoops, I should note that if you’re a young man making more than $1m a year, Trump did do a lot for you, thanks to his colossal tax cuts for the richest 1%. But for the more than 99% of young men who don’t make $1m a year, sorry, Trump didn’t do diddly for you, other than cut your taxes a wee bit, a tiny fraction of the tax cuts that he gave to the richest Americans.

I recognize that many young men feel uncomfortable about the Democratic party, partly because some Democrats unfortunately treat men as a problem – and sometimes as the problem. If the Democrats were smart, they’d see that young men – like every other group in society – have problems that they need help with, problems like affording a home, finding a good-paying job, obtaining health insurance, affording college and having enough money to raise a family.

Regardless of how you feel about Harris, the truth is that her policies will do far more for young men than Trump’s policies will. It’s not even close. She is serious about lifting up young men and young women, and she has plans to do so.

Unlike Trump, Harris will help with soaring rents and home prices. She has pledged to build 3m new homes to help drive down housing prices. In another big step to make housing more affordable, she plans to give a $25,000 subsidy to first-time home buyers. Unlike Trump, Harris is also attacking the problem of high grocery prices – she has promised to crack down on price-gouging at the supermarket.

For many young men, health coverage and high health costs are a problem. On those matters, Trump will only make things worse. He has repeatedly promised to repeal Obamacare. That would be a disaster for millions of young men and women because they would no longer be able to be on their parents’ health plan until age 26. What’s more, repealing Obamacare will push up healthcare prices.

Many young people complain about their mountains of student debt. Trump won’t help on that; he has condemned the idea of forgiving student loans. In contrast, Harris wants to expand Biden’s debt cancellation program, which is hugely popular with young Americans. What’s more, Trump backed huge cuts in student aid – a move that would make it harder for young people to afford college. Harris is eager to make college more affordable by increasing student grants. Not only that, she is looking to what Tim Walz, her running mate, has done as Minnesota’s governor. He has made Minnesota’s state universities and community colleges free for students from middle-class and lower-income families.

If you’re a young man frustrated by how little your job pays, you should know that Trump – doing a big favor for his corporate allies – did nothing to raise the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage. Harris strongly supports raising the minimum wage.

Trump has made two big promises to make your life more affordable. Without giving details, he says he will cut auto insurance prices nationwide in his first 100 days in office. He also says he will cut energy and electricity prices in half during his first year in office. If you believe those far-fetched promises, then you’ll probably believe me when I say I have a bridge to sell you.

If you’re a young father or if you hope to have a family someday, you should know that Harris’s policies will do far more for you than Trump’s. Recognizing how expensive it is to raise a family, Harris has called for creating a children’s tax credit of $3,000 per child per year and $6,000 for a newborn.

To improve work-family balance, Harris has long pushed to enact paid family and medical leave so that people can take much-needed paid time off to spend with their newborns or care for sick parents or children. (Most Republicans oppose a paid leave law because their corporate donors oppose it.) Trump doesn’t have similar pro-family policies – his main policy proposals are huge tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-rich and large tariffs on imports that will dangerously push up inflation.

Although many young Americans don’t realize it, Biden and Harris have worked hard to create good-paying jobs for those who don’t go to college. Biden and Harris fought to enact three important pieces of legislation – an infrastructure bill, a green energy bill and a computer chips bill – that will create about 1m construction jobs, factory jobs and other jobs across the US, many of them unionized jobs with strong benefits.

If you’re one of the many young people at Starbucks, REI, Apple or elsewhere who support unionizing as a way to increase your pay and improve your working conditions, you should know that Harris is a strong supporter of unions and enthusiastically backs legislation to make it easier to unionize. But billionaire Trump dislikes labor unions. When he was president, he and his appointees did dozens of things, large and small, to weaken unions and create roadblocks for workers seeking to unionize.

There’s no denying that Trump’s tough talk makes many young men feel good. But tough talk is cheap. It won’t help anyone pay the rent, afford college or raise a family. Harris doesn’t talk as tough as Trump, but her record and her policies make undeniably clear that she will do far more for America’s young men and women than Trump will.

I don't agree with every point he makes here, and I also don't think a lot of young men are voting based on rational and objective things like whose policies will benefit them most. But I still thought this was an interesting read.

[centrally-unplanned]

We have results of the "Denver Basic Income Project" targeted at homeless groups in the region, which from their lens must be quite disappointing:

Groups A and B are the experimental groups, receiving $1k a month for a year or the same amount as a lump sum. Group C got $50 a month, a "compliance" payment to make sure they show up for data collection essentially. Hilariously, the website is pretending Group C is not a control group, since they got the pennies they dug out of the sofa cushion, and saying this is all a success!

"Statistically significant across all groups" this is a hate crime against data science. But it is so laughable that it isn't really worth getting into; what else can you say?

More substantially, what you are observing in this data is that the homelessness population is a little bit bimodal between the chronic and the temporary. Not fully ofc, but it's normally evident in the data - the median person is homeless for ~12 months, but ~1/3rd are chronically homeless while another ~1/3rd are generally only homeless for a few months, and then the rest bleed out in the middle. With no UBI the results above are what you would expect - half the group found income sources, found housing, and returned to being poor-but-housed, that is the default. For the other group, homelessness is a combination of the "willing" homeless and the structurally excluded, from drug problems to actively violent behavior to track records of similar that disqualify them as too high risk, or those who simply loathe all bureaucratic systems and refuse to comply (mood).

$1000 a month is pretty substantial, you aren't realistically going to have UBI higher than that. And it is not like recipients were excluded from SNAP/food stamps or anything. Giving radically more could maybe shift things, sure, but I think you are seeing close to the "cap" here on what you can realistically shift with lump sums.

For a certain kind of UBI proponent I could see this being a failure, like "oh why did money not fix this". I sort of view it as the opposite? Why would I expect money to fix this in that way? UBI is a consumption subsidy, the entire point is that it's no-strings. If people want to spend their consumption differently than I would expect, good for them? UBI is about broad based income support; it is not targeted at specific social ills by design. I think it can have structural changes in the economy - UBI permanently shifts bargaining power between workers & employers a bit for example - but I wouldn't expect it to say close the educational achievement gap outside of marginally.

I do think this should be a check on a sort of naive "poverty" lens for social ills; ~50% of homelessness is about money churn. This paper actually does a bad job of showing that, because it tracks everyone at "time zero" when they are all homeless. If you look at other studies where housed and unhoused alike get UBI, you see that they are less likely to become homeless to begin with. And it is just one study of course - additionally 2021-2022 was a bad year for housing as temporary Covid eviction & rent control measures expired, and this pilot started in 2022, while meanwhile it was a *really* good time for the poor-but-working income-wise as low-end wages increased dramatically, so it was a big dip combined with big churn in the poverty rates. Still, with all those caveats poverty is probably not the lodestone for that other ~50%. If you want to address those social ills you are going to need more involved social programs - or be a libertarian about it and let them do as they wish. Your call, as long as the limits of "throw money" at a problem is understood.

[decolonize-the-everything]

"We need to be honest with ourselves about the kind of country we live in. Let's be honest I mean the Democrats got away with- take away the safety net. And let's be real too when they passed the new deal they weren't thinking about me, they were thinking about entities.

Corporate entities that would benefit from the subsidies, let's be honest with ourselves too. It wasn't about the poor person from Mississippi. It was about the corporate farmers that were starting to develop at that era and figuring out 'how do we subsidize them' that's what the food stamp program is about.

There's something wrong in this country telling people it is okay to work three jobs, not see your kids, not to see your loved ones, not take a vacation, and God forbid you get sick, kay? And I still got a job at home cuz I'm a mother. Cuz let's not forget I don't get a day off.

And I gotta figure all that out.

How we gonna eat, how we gonna pay rent, how we gonna pay the utility bill that- every single thing went up after COVID. Not one thing stayed the same except salaries.

The only thing that stayed the same in this country is the what? Minimum wage, even tho everything else went up.

And we have a democratic president then a republican president then a democratic president, Republican president, and neither party ever talks about what is really going on in this world. I'm not even gonna say the country. What is really really going on in this world.

There is no scarcity.

It's 'how do we pit people against each other so they're too distracted to see everything that I'm too addicted to consuming and how much profit I'm making and more profit, how many houses one individual can have and how many yachts can one individual have.'

And you're gonna arrest me now that I make a tent city?!

So if I take the scraps from the trash and make some kind of shelter for me and my children, regardless of whether I have mental health issues, regardless whether I'm an addict, regardless of whether I am a female, male, whatever. I am a human being first.

With what conscience are you criminalizing poverty?

And it's not gonna stop just in the United States. The poor of the world, not just this country, the world are fed up. The people in Gaza are fed up, people in Kensington, people in San Juan which just went through a storm and does not have electricity because the government that they belong to said you're not our country so we're not gonna give you federal dollars to fix your grid!

And let's not leave out world communities. I live in Haines City, Polk County, Florida okay? But do you think that the poor of world communities have transportation? They don't. Theres not even a f-sidewalk to walk on.

Because I am given the message of 'stay silent, stay poor, stay hidden, and die silently' kay?

If I get a job how do I get to that job? If I even get it when I'm in a world community, kay? Let's not leave those folks behind. There are hundreds and thousands of people living in trailers across the United States who are paying 1600 a month in rent for a trailer. A trailer. Have you ever been inside a trailer? [...] Do you know how that smells?

1600 dollars.

Can you afford 1600 dollars to be living in a trailer. How many jobs do you need to have? Because I personally need to have two. I shave seasonal jobs and I have other jobs; part time jobs that I do.

I have a girl friend who works 3 jobs to live in a trailer!!!!!"

There's no name on screen for me to credit that I can find thus far, but this is where it's from. Skip to 13:56.

Source:

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lorie Konish at CNBC:

The Social Security Administration is set to implement new rules to make it easier for beneficiaries to access certain benefits and increase the payments some may receive. The new changes affect Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, which provides more than 7 million Americans with monthly benefit checks. Those benefits are for seniors ages 65 and up, or adults and children who are disabled or blind, and who have little or no income or resources. “We already know that the benefit amounts that are available to people receiving SSI are incredibly low,” said Lydia Brown, director of public policy at the National Disability Institute. “They’re not as high as perhaps they could be to fully account for the needs that people have,” Brown said. The maximum federal monthly SSI benefit is currently $943 per eligible individual and $1,415 for an eligible individual and eligible spouse. The changes, which are slated to go into effect Sept. 30, are a “positive move in the right direction,” Brown said.

Updates to definition of public-assistance household

The agency on Thursday announced a new rule to expand the definition of a public-assistance household. Now, households that receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, payments and those where not all members receive public assistance will be included. With the change, more people may qualify for SSI, current beneficiaries may see higher payments and individuals who live in public-assistance households may have fewer reporting requirements, according to the Social Security Administration. The previous policy required all household members to receive public assistance. A public-assistance household will be defined as one with both an SSI applicant or beneficiary, as well as at least one other member who receives one or more forms of means-tested public income maintenance payments.

[...]

Other rule changes to help beneficiaries

The Social Security Administration is also working to address outdated practices through two other rules that are set to go into effect on Sept. 30. One change will expand the SSI rental subsidy policy to make it less likely that renting at a discounted rate or other rental assistance will affect a beneficiary’s SSI eligibility or monthly payment amount. That policy, which was already available in seven states, will apply nationally. Another change will make it so the SSA no longer counts food assistance toward support beneficiaries receive from other parties that may reduce their SSI benefit amounts.

The Social Security Administration keeps track of the resources SSI beneficiaries receive outside of their federal benefits, formally known as in-kind support and maintenance, or ISM. The purpose of ISM is to reduce SSI benefits if a recipient receives support from family and friends by treating that as unearned income, Milburn said.

Effective September 30th, Social Security Administration (SSA)’s changes to loosen Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility will take effect.

[paper-mario-wiki]

I'm sure you've been asked this before, but I need a source who isn’t wildly out of touch with what it's like to be a normal person. how financially viable was it to move to japan as a 20/21 year old? did you move there with assistance from a study program? were you able to afford everything relatively easily without an extreme amount of financial stress? sorry for being nosy. I dont need specifics, I'm just terminally curious for a firsthand account from a person who isn't independently wealthy or a 70 year old retiree. ❤️

For one semester of tuition I (my parents) paid:

$5000 without scholarship

$3000 with scholarship

Scholarship was granted on the basis of academic promise and financial guarantor status, and some students had their fees reduced by 75% and 100%.

Tuition was the thing my parent's helped me with the most, as they had saved up for all my siblings to go to college, and only my sister and myself did. But like I said, there was also significant tuition help for students worldwide at my school. Everything else I paid myself.

Before I moved I made sure I had no less than $5000 in pocket money for paying my move-in fees at my apartment, getting a Japanese phone, bank account, insurance, and a bike. After that, home appliances and necessities. When you make your budget, you always want to over prepare. I made sure I had $1000 wiggle room on top of my budget because once youre there, YOURE THERE and home is a long puddle away.

My rent was $600 for a small 1 room apartment (pictured here) that I would have paid less for if I spoke Japanese (paid the gaijin tax by going through an english speaking rental company)

I chose this apartment because of its proximity to the Karasuma subway line, which I could ride directly to school. There and back was about $4 a day, as I went all the way up town. I paid about $40 in utilities on low-use months, and up to $120 on high-use months.

Monthly insurance was $70 without student subsidy, I believe closer to $10 monthly with it. This covers basically everything healthcare-wise.

Food was cheap in Kyoto specifically. Most restaurants had meals under $10, and if you're moving there for school theres a high liklihood you'll be in the city, which means you'll rarely be more than a 3 minute walk from a convenience store which has lunch sets you can take home or reheat and eat in the konbini's sitting area (not guaranteed to have one but more frequent than not having one). I spent maybe a few hundred monthly on meals, mostly because I couldn't cook due to how small my kitchenette was (it's that little stall in the back left corner of the room in the picture).

As an international student, if you're performing above a certain threshhold in your studies you can get a baito visa, meaning on top of your studies you can work a part time job for up to 20 hours a week. This can help a lot, and I knew a few people who worked at clubs, as translators, and as baristas.

If you are making money, you are expected to either pay tax to Japan, or your home country. This is something I absolutely cannot give advice on.

All that said, in my case, living in Japan as a solo adult was easier and significantly more affordable than living in the US with 3 roommates.

[mesetacadre]

Okay so the state has offered a program of rent subsidies, and the funding of these subsudies comes from both the state and each autonomous community's government, while the granting of these subsidies are solely dependent on the regional government. In the Madrid region, out of 48,000 applications (!!), they have only granted 81. lmfao

[mostlysignssomeportents]

What kind of bubble is AI?

My latest column for Locus Magazine is "What Kind of Bubble is AI?" All economic bubbles are hugely destructive, but some of them leave behind wreckage that can be salvaged for useful purposes, while others leave nothing behind but ashes:

https://locusmag.com/2023/12/commentary-cory-doctorow-what-kind-of-bubble-is-ai/

Think about some 21st century bubbles. The dotcom bubble was a terrible tragedy, one that drained the coffers of pension funds and other institutional investors and wiped out retail investors who were gulled by Superbowl Ads. But there was a lot left behind after the dotcoms were wiped out: cheap servers, office furniture and space, but far more importantly, a generation of young people who'd been trained as web makers, leaving nontechnical degree programs to learn HTML, perl and python. This created a whole cohort of technologists from non-technical backgrounds, a first in technological history. Many of these people became the vanguard of a more inclusive and humane tech development movement, and they were able to make interesting and useful services and products in an environment where raw materials – compute, bandwidth, space and talent – were available at firesale prices.

Contrast this with the crypto bubble. It, too, destroyed the fortunes of institutional and individual investors through fraud and Superbowl Ads. It, too, lured in nontechnical people to learn esoteric disciplines at investor expense. But apart from a smattering of Rust programmers, the main residue of crypto is bad digital art and worse Austrian economics.

Or think of Worldcom vs Enron. Both bubbles were built on pure fraud, but Enron's fraud left nothing behind but a string of suspicious deaths. By contrast, Worldcom's fraud was a Big Store con that required laying a ton of fiber that is still in the ground to this day, and is being bought and used at pennies on the dollar.

AI is definitely a bubble. As I write in the column, if you fly into SFO and rent a car and drive north to San Francisco or south to Silicon Valley, every single billboard is advertising an "AI" startup, many of which are not even using anything that can be remotely characterized as AI. That's amazing, considering what a meaningless buzzword AI already is.

So which kind of bubble is AI? When it pops, will something useful be left behind, or will it go away altogether? To be sure, there's a legion of technologists who are learning Tensorflow and Pytorch. These nominally open source tools are bound, respectively, to Google and Facebook's AI environments:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/18/openwashing/#you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means

But if those environments go away, those programming skills become a lot less useful. Live, large-scale Big Tech AI projects are shockingly expensive to run. Some of their costs are fixed – collecting, labeling and processing training data – but the running costs for each query are prodigious. There's a massive primary energy bill for the servers, a nearly as large energy bill for the chillers, and a titanic wage bill for the specialized technical staff involved.

Once investor subsidies dry up, will the real-world, non-hyperbolic applications for AI be enough to cover these running costs? AI applications can be plotted on a 2X2 grid whose axes are "value" (how much customers will pay for them) and "risk tolerance" (how perfect the product needs to be).

Charging teenaged D&D players $10 month for an image generator that creates epic illustrations of their characters fighting monsters is low value and very risk tolerant (teenagers aren't overly worried about six-fingered swordspeople with three pupils in each eye). Charging scammy spamfarms $500/month for a text generator that spits out dull, search-algorithm-pleasing narratives to appear over recipes is likewise low-value and highly risk tolerant (your customer doesn't care if the text is nonsense). Charging visually impaired people $100 month for an app that plays a text-to-speech description of anything they point their cameras at is low-value and moderately risk tolerant ("that's your blue shirt" when it's green is not a big deal, while "the street is safe to cross" when it's not is a much bigger one).

Morganstanley doesn't talk about the trillions the AI industry will be worth some day because of these applications. These are just spinoffs from the main event, a collection of extremely high-value applications. Think of self-driving cars or radiology bots that analyze chest x-rays and characterize masses as cancerous or noncancerous.

These are high value – but only if they are also risk-tolerant. The pitch for self-driving cars is "fire most drivers and replace them with 'humans in the loop' who intervene at critical junctures." That's the risk-tolerant version of self-driving cars, and it's a failure. More than $100b has been incinerated chasing self-driving cars, and cars are nowhere near driving themselves:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/09/herbies-revenge/#100-billion-here-100-billion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money

Quite the reverse, in fact. Cruise was just forced to quit the field after one of their cars maimed a woman – a pedestrian who had not opted into being part of a high-risk AI experiment – and dragged her body 20 feet through the streets of San Francisco. Afterwards, it emerged that Cruise had replaced the single low-waged driver who would normally be paid to operate a taxi with 1.5 high-waged skilled technicians who remotely oversaw each of its vehicles:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/technology/cruise-general-motors-self-driving-cars.html

The self-driving pitch isn't that your car will correct your own human errors (like an alarm that sounds when you activate your turn signal while someone is in your blind-spot). Self-driving isn't about using automation to augment human skill – it's about replacing humans. There's no business case for spending hundreds of billions on better safety systems for cars (there's a human case for it, though!). The only way the price-tag justifies itself is if paid drivers can be fired and replaced with software that costs less than their wages.

What about radiologists? Radiologists certainly make mistakes from time to time, and if there's a computer vision system that makes different mistakes than the sort that humans make, they could be a cheap way of generating second opinions that trigger re-examination by a human radiologist. But no AI investor thinks their return will come from selling hospitals that reduce the number of X-rays each radiologist processes every day, as a second-opinion-generating system would. Rather, the value of AI radiologists comes from firing most of your human radiologists and replacing them with software whose judgments are cursorily double-checked by a human whose "automation blindness" will turn them into an OK-button-mashing automaton:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/23/automation-blindness/#humans-in-the-loop

The profit-generating pitch for high-value AI applications lies in creating "reverse centaurs": humans who serve as appendages for automation that operates at a speed and scale that is unrelated to the capacity or needs of the worker:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/17/revenge-of-the-chickenized-reverse-centaurs/

But unless these high-value applications are intrinsically risk-tolerant, they are poor candidates for automation. Cruise was able to nonconsensually enlist the population of San Francisco in an experimental murderbot development program thanks to the vast sums of money sloshing around the industry. Some of this money funds the inevitabilist narrative that self-driving cars are coming, it's only a matter of when, not if, and so SF had better get in the autonomous vehicle or get run over by the forces of history.

Once the bubble pops (all bubbles pop), AI applications will have to rise or fall on their actual merits, not their promise. The odds are stacked against the long-term survival of high-value, risk-intolerant AI applications.

The problem for AI is that while there are a lot of risk-tolerant applications, they're almost all low-value; while nearly all the high-value applications are risk-intolerant. Once AI has to be profitable – once investors withdraw their subsidies from money-losing ventures – the risk-tolerant applications need to be sufficient to run those tremendously expensive servers in those brutally expensive data-centers tended by exceptionally expensive technical workers.

If they aren't, then the business case for running those servers goes away, and so do the servers – and so do all those risk-tolerant, low-value applications. It doesn't matter if helping blind people make sense of their surroundings is socially beneficial. It doesn't matter if teenaged gamers love their epic character art. It doesn't even matter how horny scammers are for generating AI nonsense SEO websites:

https://twitter.com/jakezward/status/1728032634037567509

These applications are all riding on the coattails of the big AI models that are being built and operated at a loss in order to be profitable. If they remain unprofitable long enough, the private sector will no longer pay to operate them.

Now, there are smaller models, models that stand alone and run on commodity hardware. These would persist even after the AI bubble bursts, because most of their costs are setup costs that have already been borne by the well-funded companies who created them. These models are limited, of course, though the communities that have formed around them have pushed those limits in surprising ways, far beyond their original manufacturers' beliefs about their capacity. These communities will continue to push those limits for as long as they find the models useful.

These standalone, "toy" models are derived from the big models, though. When the AI bubble bursts and the private sector no longer subsidizes mass-scale model creation, it will cease to spin out more sophisticated models that run on commodity hardware (it's possible that Federated learning and other techniques for spreading out the work of making large-scale models will fill the gap).

So what kind of bubble is the AI bubble? What will we salvage from its wreckage? Perhaps the communities who've invested in becoming experts in Pytorch and Tensorflow will wrestle them away from their corporate masters and make them generally useful. Certainly, a lot of people will have gained skills in applying statistical techniques.

But there will also be a lot of unsalvageable wreckage. As big AI models get integrated into the processes of the productive economy, AI becomes a source of systemic risk. The only thing worse than having an automated process that is rendered dangerous or erratic based on AI integration is to have that process fail entirely because the AI suddenly disappeared, a collapse that is too precipitous for former AI customers to engineer a soft landing for their systems.

This is a blind spot in our policymakers debates about AI. The smart policymakers are asking questions about fairness, algorithmic bias, and fraud. The foolish policymakers are ensnared in fantasies about "AI safety," AKA "Will the chatbot become a superintelligence that turns the whole human race into paperclips?"

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/#taking-up-a-lot-of-space

But no one is asking, "What will we do if" – when – "the AI bubble pops and most of this stuff disappears overnight?"

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/19/bubblenomics/#pop

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

--

tom_bullock (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/tombullock/25173469495/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

[wholesomequeershit]

I don’t have much reach on Tumblr so reblogs are hugely appreciated.

The Glad Day Bookshop in Toronto, Canada is in danger of eviction. Besides being the oldest (and non-profit!) queer bookshop in the world, they are also a coffee shop and events venue providing a much needed place for queers of every flavor to feel safe and supported. If you have the means to help, please do! If not, reblogs and sharing on other platforms are very very appreciated. Queer spaces worldwide are getting fewer. We have to try to save the ones we have.

-Juno

Copy paste of their instagram post text:

The Immediate Crisis -

Glad Day has reached a crisis point. Since the ‘end’ of the pandemic (and the end of COVID-19 subsidies) we have been struggling. We have been going into debt almost every month for the last 2 years. We have often been short on rent. Our landlord has been patient but if we are unable to provide him with a lump sum payment of $100,000 in July, we will be evicted. BUT if we can pay him $100,000, he has agreed to a small reduction in our rent for 1 year, which gives us time to consult with our communities, explore our options, and create the next version of Glad Day.

The Strategy -

We are hoping to raise $300,000 to give us at least one more stable year at our current location and provide the capacity needed to dream of and act on whatever Glad Day becomes next.

This fundraiser will help us prevent a crisis, stabilize us for a year and be a catalyst for rebirth.

We know that with intense inflation, funds are tight for many people and you may already be donating to other organizations. Any support you can provide, even if it is sharing this campaign with one other person, is deeply appreciated.

[athingofvikings]

A Thing Of Vikings Chapter 162: Iterations

Chapter 162: Iterations

In broad terms, taxation is a required levy or other such contribution, in the form of goods, services, or currency, imposed by a government on those bound to pay the tax (which are often, but not always, citizens of that government). Taxation can range across a continuum from full-bore rent-seeking on one end, to merely extractive, to a tool for regulating and shaping behavior, to the far end with subsidies as a form of negative taxation. In general, the further towards rent-seeking the taxation is, the more resentful and resistant the taxpaying population will be, although there will always be outliers in both directions—even in the most subsidizing taxation environment, there will be those who claim noncompliance on the grounds that “taxation is theft” and other such beliefs, and even in the most most rent-seeking environment, there will be those who unquestioningly pay what is required. Those exceptions aside, in most populations of taxpayers, general attitudes track well with the size and quality of their perceived personal benefit from the taxes they pay. In pure rent-seeking, where the tax-payers gain minimal to no benefit from what they pay (common in feudal, dictatorial, kleptocratic, and extractivist polities), taxpayers, especially at the local level, see all of the prosperity of their home vanish into the pockets of the wealthy for their own personal enrichment, and thus question the benefits of taxation. Conversely, in environments where taxes directly fund social services and public goods, individual taxpayers can directly witness these benefits.

—Nationbuilding: How People Move, Talk, Think, Organize, & Structure Themselves, 1888, Amsterdam University Press

AO3 Chapter Link