this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
1716 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7166 readers
4806 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Related: the idea that everyone needs to work all the time isn't really true anymore. If we were in like 3000 bce in a small farming village outside Ur, yeah, people gotta pitch in so we don't get eaten by wildlife, the neighboring tribe, or whatever.
But in 2025ce, where so many jobs have so much filler nonsense? And when the rich can just live on investment income? No, the whole "work or starve" thing isn't needed anymore.
We should have basic income for all and public housing. Let people pursue what they want. Maybe it's art. Maybe they just want to take care of the local library. Maybe they just want to be a local barfly that keeps the tavern interesting. Who knows? But wage slavery needs to go.
How do you think they make that money? Primarily off of consumerism. If we all collectively decided to share what we have and stop buying what we don't need, there could be no passive income, not at the scale it exists today, anyways.
We also need to outlaw landlords. Owning land is not a job and it's certainly not a business.
I think landlords make a lot of sense for commercially-zoned property, and for residentially there needs to be some way to live somewhere even if you can't afford the mortgage deposit. So there's nuance here that needs addressing IMO.
We could just... give everyone a place to live. Then there's no such thing as "can't afford a mortgage."
Do people get to choose where they live in this scenario, or do we just allocate housing based on where's currently unoccupied?
People don't really get to choose where they live now. If you mean choosing from a list of vacancies, then sure, I don't see why not.
People do kinda pick where they are though? If there's some unoccupied housing in Denver, but you're living in Austin it's not necessarily useful, that's what I meant. I agree in principle on social housing, but there would probably need to be some kind of associated projects -- either new construction or housing where ppl live but there isn't enough accommodation, or new jobs created in areas with surplus, or both... And then you also need to think about local amenities (shops, hospitals, parks, schools, that sort of SimCity thing)
Sorry, I might have come across as if I fully disagreed with the notion, but I really don't - I just think that the idea only works with a more integrated policy.
Oh, sure, If you're just talking about stuff like which city to live in, I would think that these services would be available in every city. Although it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a system in place to encourage people to relocate, but it wouldn't be forced.
I think under a UBI scenario, people should get to pick the city they want to reside in, then get assigned a public housing unit(s) for their immediate family. They can also be provided free public transport, and a basic UBI vehicle with free fuel.
Ideally, people would have a bedrock of UBI services to rely upon for their wellbeing, and money is turned into something solely used for lifestyle upgrades: Buying a house of the quality, size, and location you want, a fancier non-UBI car, brand-name food or supplies, private school, ect.