They tried this in the communist countries when they were still around. Sure, people had affordable housing and didn't have to worry about homelessness, but at what cost? That's not a rhetorical question.
That seems like a net win when you don't just consider the cost of doing it, but the cost of not doing it.
But
> Initially, public housing was intended to be built widespread, and as such be mixed-income, but lobbyists who did not want to see public housing decrease their housing values blocked such housing from going up
>With the introduction of suburbs and expansion of choices for the white working class, the demographics of public housing changed from more class and racially integrated to predominantly impoverished, single-parent, welfare, and people of color[30]. This led to stigmatization of public housing, through pushing the narrative that people living in public housing were "Welfare Queens", or otherwise living in a state of abject poverty and terrible conditions[30]. These demographic changes also decreased support for housing, leading to the government cutting funding for the program
Well? Go on? At what cost?
Pretty sure none will be willing to trade back and would view any attempts at establishing public housing for all as a scary step in the wrong direction.
My point was it is a bad thing because people would likely not be willing to trade back to that for housing security. They had housing security and still left.
I'm living in the exUSSR. Plenty of older people are nostalgic about security they had back then.
Food, housing, healthcare and even job were mostly handled for them. Most of the people prefer that to the extreme freedom and self-reliance.
When we talk about balance of these things, though, Scandinavian countries seem to be pretty popular.
I myself don't think socialist model will work without AGI, but maybe some hybrid model will do.
But it is my sense from past conversations that none of these friends and acquaintances would be willing to trade back. I also think it’s reasonable to conclude that the people who stayed vs the people who left might have different opinions over those governments too.
The man who is willing to risk floating 90 miles across shark infested seas in a makeshift raft might have a different perspective of security and personal risk then someone who just kept their head down and suffered silently…or was content in their station.