ubi, universal basic income
seen from China
seen from Germany
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from China

seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from China

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Canada

seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Albania

seen from Russia

seen from Germany
seen from Yemen
ubi, universal basic income

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
A new guaranteed income pilot program in Boston aims to set an example for future policies.
"According to the Stanford Basic Income Lab, universal basic income is a periodic cash payment that is given to individuals unconditionally, requiring no work requirement or sanctions to access.
And as various nonprofits and cities across the country experiment with basic income programs, most have found that the money received is largely used to pay for the basic essentials many Americans struggle to afford.
A new pilot program in Boston, Massachusetts wants to find out if the same trend applies for a specific demographic: young adults facing homelessness.
The program is called BAY-CASH, or Boston Area Youth Cash Assistance for Stable Housing. Their plan is to offer a select group of 15 young adults ages 18 to 24 $1,200 per month for 24 months.
Each month, they will receive two $600 payments, and they will each have access to a one-time drawdown amount of $3,000, used to pay for things like a security deposit, a car repair, a medical expense, or other crisis.
“BAY-CASH is what we call a demonstration program,” the program’s director Matt Aronson told GBH, the local NPR affiliate.
Aronson has been working on developing a model for direct cash transfers to address young adult homelessness since 2017, when he also co-led the development of the City of Boston’s plan to prevent and end homelessness among young adults. Finally, his vision has reached a crucial next step.
“We’re trying to demonstrate to the state of Massachusetts that this kind of programming, a guaranteed-income program with supportive services, should be part of our toolkit that we use to prevent and end homelessness for young adults,” he continued to GBH.
Program participants will also receive two and a half years of supportive services, like a navigator who helps young people identify and access the resources they need, as well as financial coaching.
Aronson added that there is no penalty if a participant doesn’t use them, but they were built into the program based on the services young people asked for.
One of those young people is Deandre (who chose to omit his last name for privacy). Having grown up in Boston, he was out on his own, but after coming on hard times, he found himself involved in a few youth homelessness programs. That’s where he found out about BAY-CASH.
“I heard about … potentially getting cash payments to help with all the necessary things I have to go through on a regular basis,” he told GBH. “I was absolutely ecstatic.”
He told GBH that he plans to use the money to access food, clean clothes, and rent and housing expenses when he eventually has a place of his own again. He also hopes to one day save up to buy a car so he doesn’t have to rely on the city’s bus system.
The flexibility for him to choose how to spend the money is a key component to what Aronson believes is the magic of guaranteed income.
“Current homelessness resources for young adults in Massachusetts are scarce, can be slow to deploy and inflexible, and often lead to inequitable outcomes for historically and systemically oppressed populations,” BAY-CASH shares on its website.
“[We are] trusting that young people know their needs and communities better than anyone else.”
Aronson added that the pilot program will provide the state with more evidence to consider something “a little bit more flexible than what they’ve developed,” and ensure that a budget would be available to enact something similar in other regions of the state.
Right now, the pilot program is being funded by private donors and foundations, along with the city of Cambridge via a one-time cash infusion, and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services.
The hope, Aronson said, is that this program proves its efficacy for the long haul.
“There’s some skepticism around and moralizing why folks are poor, why folks who are experiencing homelessness that causes us to suspect, ‘Oh, they must be wasting their money,’” Aronson said. “Over and over, the evidence is consistent that folks use these to meet their basic needs.”
For Deandre, who has dreams of someday becoming an architect, the program represents something greater.
“Just because we’re experiencing homelessness doesn’t mean it has to be a barrier for us to stop living our lives and that we can’t escape it,” he told GBH.
“With more programs such as BAY-CASH and with more people spreading awareness about the issues that are going on in our community … it’s all about making sure that the next person doesn’t have to experience what you’ve had to experience. It’s about doing what you can to eradicate homelessness, and I think that should be everyone’s ultimate goal.”"
-via GoodGoodGood, August 11, 2025
If you didn't need to work for money (e.g. via universal basic income), would you still work? If so, what's the primary reason?
Yes, my work helps people
Yes, I like the end product of my work
Yes, I enjoy working/being productive
Yes, to spend time with my coworkers
Yes, I need the structure/schedule
Yes, I feel an obligation to my workplace/company
Yes, another reason
No, I'd stop working
Not applicable/I don't or can't work now anyway
We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.
UBI works. 88% success rate.
My least favorite things about anti- UBI discourse is always the techbros whining that "nobody is going to work anymore! People will just watch Netflix all day!" and I have 2 responses:
1) Who the fuck cares. Who the fuck cares what people do with their time! That's kind of the fucking point!
2) People aren't going to stop laboring. Housework (look, it's right there in the word!) will still need to be done. So will maintenance on our homes and personal spaces. Children will still need carers, as will the elderly and disabled. There are millions of examples of ~work~ that we do all the time, uncompensated, that won't suddenly stop because we aren't forced to sell our labor to provide corporation's profits.
I'm not surprised that what is traditionally women's work is invisible to these dipshits, but it never fails to anger me.
Anyway. Join the IWW.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Code is a liability (not an asset)
I'm coming to COLORADO! Catch me in DENVER on Jan 22 at The Tattered Cover<, and in COLORADO SPRINGS from Jan 23–25 where I'm the Guest of Honor at COSine. Then I'll be in OTTAWA on Jan 28 at Perfect Books and in TORONTO with Tim Wu on Jan 30.
Code is a liability (not an asset). Tech bosses don't understand this. They think AI is great because it produces 10,000 times more code than a programmer, but that just means it's producing 10,000 times more liabilities. AI is the asbestos we're shoveling into the walls of our high-tech society:
https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/27/econopocalypse/#subprime-intelligence
Code is a liability. Code's capabilities are assets. The goal of a tech shop is to have code whose capabilities generate more revenue than the costs associated with keeping that code running. For a long time, firms have nurtured a false belief that code costs less to run over time: after an initial shakedown period in which the bugs in the code are found and addressed, code ceases to need meaningful maintenance. After all, code is a machine without moving parts – it does not wear out; it doesn't even wear down.
This is the thesis of Paul Mason's 2015 book Postcapitalism, a book that has aged remarkably poorly (though not, perhaps, as poorly as Mason's own political credibility): code is not an infinitely reproducible machine that requires no labor inputs to operate. Rather, it is a brittle machine that requires increasingly heroic measures to keep it in good working order, and which eventually does "wear out" (in the sense of needing a top-to-bottom refactoring).
To understand why code is a liability, you have to understand the difference between "writing code" and "software engineering."
"Writing code" is an incredibly useful, fun, and engrossing pastime. It involves breaking down complex tasks into discrete steps that are so precisely described that a computer can reliably perform them, and optimising that performance by finding clever ways of minimizing the demands the code puts on the computer's resources, such as RAM and processor cycles.
Meanwhile, "software engineering" is a discipline that subsumes "writing code," but with a focus on the long-term operations of the system the code is part of. Software engineering concerns itself with the upstream processes that generate the data the system receives. It concerns itself with the downstream processes that the system emits processed information to. It concerns itself with the adjacent systems that are receiving data from the same upstream processes and/or emitting data to the same downstream processes the system is emitting to.
"Writing code" is about making code that runs well. "Software engineering" is about making code that fails well. It's about making code that is legible – whose functions can be understood by third parties who might be asked to maintain it, or might be asked to adapt the processes downstream, upstream or adjacent to the system to keep the system from breaking. It's about making code that can be adapted, for example, when the underlying computer architecture it runs on is retired and has to be replaced, either with a new kind of computer, or with an emulated version of the old computer:
https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/05/hpux_end_of_life/
Because that's the thing: any nontrivial code has to interact with the outside world, and the outside world isn't static, it's dynamic. The outside world busts through the assumptions made by software authors all the time and every time it does, the software needs to be fixed. Remember Y2K? That was a day when perfectly functional code, running on perfectly functional hardware, would stop functioning – not because the code changed, but because time marched on.
Classic economic theory assumes low-income people would stop working if governments gave them money as a strategy to reduce poverty.
Classic economic theory assumes low-income people would stop working if governments gave them money as a strategy to reduce poverty. New research co-authored by a Cornell expert in industrial relations challenges that assumption, finding that a modest tax benefit in Canada—similar to the U.S. Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—encouraged low-income workers to stay employed.
Continue Reading.
As a society we have a hard time imagining what the world looks like when on UBI with shelter and utilities.
So, back in 2012, when I was part of a work exchange in Turkey, I had about 3 months of break when the place I used to work at ended activities for the summer.
The salary I was provided by the program was just about enough to purchase food, cleaning supplies, transportation and all the other basics. It also helped that me and the other 2 roommates on the same program pooled the salary to have more money for ourselves in the end.
So for 3 months of my life I didn't have to show up to work but I also was paid money to cover living expenses and a little bit left for splurging.
What little was left after budgeting for the necessary I had to stretch across the month until the next payment. That meant going to the movies maybe once a month, one beer at the bar that had to last for the entire night, and eating treats maybe just a couple of times a week.
If I had been legally allowed to, I would've found a part time job to make more money. But my contract said that being employed at another place would be motive for firing.
Living in these conditions is weird because it's not like I was gonna starve or end up in the street but at the same time I felt limited because I couldn't do as many things as I wanted to, least I ended up broke.
Most of those 3 months consisted on cooking meals with care, reading a lot, drawing a lot, watching series on pirated websites, And taking walks maybe 2 times a day... and I mean 3-4 hour walks. Hanging out with friends had to be rationed because most of the times it meant spending money in transportation, meals, or drinks.
And one time I did go broke one week before the next paycheck. I had to let my roommates bank my transportation during that week and aside from that, the only entertainment I could have had to be at home because I literally didn't have money for anything else.
So while I wasn't worried about sustenance or shelter I still was worried about other things; not running out of money was still one of them. I wanted things like books, figures, treats that I couldn't afford. I still thought about what to do with my life 10 years from then (I still had to finish uni), about dating, about my friends, about where the world was going.
Maybe I could've found a job off the books; waiting tables, drawing for commissions, or something. But I was 19 and I didn't know how easy would've been to wiggle out of that problem if my employers had caught me.
But the thing is, even with the basic needs met, it turned out that I still wanted to do labor to fill more time in the day and to be able to fulfill those little comforts that I couldn't: buying more snacks for the rest of the month, more hangouts with friends, travel to other parts of the country, buying books, art supplies, toys, etc.