$750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people
$750 a month, no questions asked, improved the lives of homeless people
A study by USC and a San Francisco-based nonprofit has found that a $750 monthly stipend improves the lives of homeless people.
If 100 homeless people were given $750 per month for a year, no questions asked, what would they spend it on?
That question was at the core of a controlled study conducted by a San Francisco-based nonprofit and the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work.
The results were so promising that the researchers decided to publish results after only six months. The answer: food, 36.6%; housing, 19.5%; transportation, 12.7%; clothing, 11.5%; and healthcare, 6.2%, leaving only 13.6% uncategorized.
Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.
-
$750 a month would improve the lives of plenty of people who aren't homeless too. Up to and including the middle class.
But I suppose a UBI is a non-starter everywhere in the U.S. but Alaska.
-
Our corporate oligarchs already pitch a fit about collective bargaining, universal healthcare, and adjusting minimum wage to match inflation. I can't imagine they'd react well to a universal basic income except by raping the fading middle class even more.
-
It’s because there is no unified aristocracy. All those rich families are cordial but are out only for themselves. They can’t see that having all the menials healthy/housed/fed improves all their wealth.
-
That would basically cover my student loan payments, so it would be equivalent to loan forgiveness for me. Improve is an understatement, that would actually allow me to save money. Right now my wife and I make slightly above area median income and we're just treading water financially. This would be a game changer. We could actually consider having a kid.
-
A non-starter unless it's building up pro fossil fuel constituency.
/murica eagle screech
-
Imagine having money, but still being stuck in Alaska.
-
-
Almost like the 1% are stealing from each and every one of us. With a fraction of their profits each one of us would live a better life.
-
A fraction of a fraction. It really is mind-boggling how much money is being generated by some of these billionaires that isn't being taxed.
-
Not taxed, not labored by them for. It's like an exclusive version of Las Vegas where you can bring your own loaded loaded "I make dictate the terms" dice and marked "Heres some insider information" cards.
For this, we are pressured to thank and admire them as benevolent job creators. It's wild how irrational they've manipulated everyone into being.
-
-
Our oligarchs can't feel like god without creating a hell to feel superior to.
Schadenfreude is a hell of a drug. Even many of our struggling citizens try to get a fix by blaming the powerless homeless and believing they somehow deserve to die of exposure, hunger, treatable disease, and police harassment.
-
-
Giving people money improves their quality of life?
Who would have guessed?
-
Of course, but it's not a very good experiment for a mass rollout. On a mass scale I hypothsize it will diminish motivation to find a job, thereby reducing the number of taxpayers, and that leads to the big question: who are you taking this money away from? 9 times out of 10 it's middle class folks. 1%ers and corporations can afford to spend the money to get every single tax break, so middle class without those resources will end up paying most of the bill.
-
I'm glad you came up with a hypothesis, fortunately scientists have already tested your hypothesis (or something very analogous) and failed to prove it, in fact they have indicated the opposite effect.
I hope that in the name of scientific knowledge and progress you take this research into account and change your view based on the available information.
-
It's been calculated multiple times that UBI would have a similar cost to existing welfare programs due to the significantly reduced overhead. Thus whoever pays for UBI are the same ones currently paying for existing welfare.
-
It might sound backwards but for a lot of people, myself included, not having a job will actually diminish motivation.
The frustration of applying for jobs and going for interviews with no response for months on end only adds to the stress of not having any money.
-
There is massive, long term UBI study happening ongoing in Kenya, and the results are extremely positive.
About 200 Kenyan villages were assigned to one of three groups and started receiving payment in 2018.
A monthly universal basic income (UBI) empowered recipients and did not create idleness. They invested, became more entrepreneurial, and earned more. The common concern of “laziness” never materialized, as recipients did not work less nor drink more.
Both a large lump sum and a long-term UBI proved highly effective. The lump sum enabled big investments and the guarantee of 12 years of UBI encouraged savings and risk-taking.
Early findings from the world’s largest UBI study, Dec 6, 2023 by GiveDirectly
-
It would push people to find better jobs; advocate for better working conditions, and actually have money to spend.
Sure, you can go work at a grocery store part-time while making your $750 for some extra cash. Most of that $750 is gonna go into grocery costs anyway, might as well make some extra money.
-
Your hypothesis is an intuitive and common fear, and so has been studied before and found insubstantial, with Canada's "Mincome" experiment being one of the most notable: in the 70s Canada targeted members of a town with a minimum income for five years, and saw results like people opening businesses with loans they could get now that they could cite the income. Where they saw people leaving jobs, it was often for education - their high school enrollment hit 100% for the senior year for the first time ever, due to the kids not needing to help bring in money. It was ended during a fiscal crisis when the government was looking for places to tighten belts. This BBC article is a good read on it, focused on the positive health impact.
-
This experiment is not on basic universal income specifically, but UBI is about giving unconditional income to anyone to keep you afloat with day to day expenses. It's not about giving you income so you could spend it on a holiday cruise. You are still expected to work if you want to have your dream holiday.
From who whose money will fund UBI? From taxing robots. Edit: I will add that this is once robots are sufficiently more capable than humans for work to displace our labour.
-
I pay enough taxes to support 125 $750 users like this and would gladly pay it, too. 125 people that are better off would have a significant positive impact to a community, and I'm all for it.
Also money that they spend, somewhere at some point would likely be taxed.
Your logic is flawed.
-
Rogan, is that you?
-
-
-
“What can we do to help these people whose problem is that they don’t have money?”
“Give them money?”
“That’s just crazy enough to work!”
-
Wait a sec. You're telling me that giving money to people that don't have money helps them do things that require money?! I'm shocked.
-
-
Those who got the stipend were less likely to be unsheltered after six months and able to meet more of their basic needs than a control group that got no money, and half as likely as the control group to have an episode of being unsheltered.
I feel extremely bad for the control group.
-
yeah. stuff like this really feels like human experimentation (because it kinda is). i wish people were more willing to just implement these UBI programs at the government level. the results would be so nice
-
It's unfortunately necessary. They have to have evidence the strategy works before public money can be spent on it.
To get that evidence, they have to do studies, and those studies have to be serious, which means following the standard scientific methods. Which means needing a control group.
It just happens that the control group in this scenario is getting the short end of the stick.
-
-
So do I, but their sacrifice has led to good quality data that shows that giving unhoused people money without conditions helps them to reintegrate, become housed and hopefully employed and again contributing to society as a whole. It’s a silver bullet against thinking like “don’t give that homeless person money; they’ll just spend it on drugs!” that we have been force-fed for decades. Hopefully, that may lead to better outcomes for them.
-
-
$750 a month is like $9000 a year.
I spend $500 on groceries!
I think this program would help a lot in so many ways and I hope it passes.
-
Multiply that by 653,000, and then ask how much you’re willing to chip in to that.
EDIT: people don’t seem to like reality sprinkled on top of their fantasy world where mere suggestions of how things SHOULD be automatically makes them so.
Sure, it would be nice to gut the defense budget to care for Americans in need. But you know we’re not doing that. So that leaves us to accept the reality of it:
It’s going to fall on taxpayers. And we’re strapped enough as it is.
So I ask again:
How much of that $5.8BN are all of you willing to chip in, k owing that we’re not selling aircraft carriers or raiding the defense budget coffers.
-
-
$750 a month would be life altering for me.
-
Life altering like you can buy food and clothes?
-
and perhaps sleep on an actual bed for the first time in over 20 years.
-
yes
-
-
In my country that's a very solid salary.
But it's important to remain in context of the US and the starting point is around 0$, so having only 750$ still makes you very poor.
-
-
All these UBI experiments ever seem to demonstrate is the "BI" part.
But the part that needs to be demonstrated, IMHO, is the "U".
-
Well we can't do that until we do that. And shitting on the experiments means we'll never do the Universal part.
-
This isn't really true.
We generally don't experiment with economic policy because it's not practical.
The main impediment to UBI is not supporting data, but political will. Voters are so used to punishing poor people that UBI just doesn't resonate with the voting public. Of course that will change with the continuing encroachment of automation.
Additionally UBI is not all or nothing. You could increase it over time. If 20% of average salary is the objective, then start with 1% this year and increase it by 1% each year for the next 19 years. It will take 20 years to dismantle the other welfare systems anyway.
-
It's not the critics of the experiments that are the problem.
The "experiments" are just watering down the idea of UBI into "just rename existing benefits programs".
You'd need to restructure an entire country's tax systems to really do a proper experiment. No country could just afford to give everyone free money. You'd have to structure it so the average person pays back exactly what extra they got, and build affordable housing for the people that actually choose to live on just UBI.
-
We can't meaningfully advocate or plan for its implementation unless we have some idea how it would work. And that it can work.
The sorts of experiments in the OP get us no closer to that. They prove nothing that wasn't already pretty uncontroversial and obvious, and offer no insights about how these programs might be implemented universally.
Pointing this out does not hold back UBI. Ignoring it, however, does.
-
-
We're honestly not at a point where UBI is sustainable. However, this clearly demonstrates that replacing existing welfare with straight up cash, and changing how that cash scales down as people approach a "normal minimum" income, is vastly superior to our current system
-
-
On 750 a month I could live in the forest somewhere and do occasional supply runs to replenish my tree fort. Or do a shit ton of drugs but either way I'd be pretty happy.
-
Tbh as long as you weren't hurting anyone, putting others in danger and were happy I personally wouldn't give a toss what you did with your money even if that came from taxes I paid. Better this then the current homeless situation.
-
Grow shrooms; do both.
-
-
Now watch how out of touch conservatives are when they start claiming that these people are living in luxury. It's a great project and I'm not trying to demerit the people in charge, but $750 doesn't go far at all in a place like San Francisco
-
Remember when they flipped their shit over obama phones? Like, poor people were getting free or low cost cell phones. The horror! What's next, food stamp steaks? What? You mean food stamps aren't limited to gruel and powdered milk?
-
Ppl in SF are sure as shit not turning that down. At the minimum that's your food for the month sorted out.
-
-
There's also been a lot of success with providing housing to the homeless. When they have stability, they use it to create a better life for themselves, and that translates to lower costs in terms of enforcement, ER visits, legal aid, and incarceration.
The US doesn't provide for this in federal policy because we like our laws to reflect the cruelty and malice we have in our hearts for perceived undesirables.
-
If you are mentally ill or had a streak of bad luck, it's your own fault. Be smart and get born rich like almost every rich person does. My God why are people so stupid?
/s-
Whoa there rich people were born the same way we were. They followed a simple 7 step plan.
- Stay in school. Even if it's stupid and boring.
- Don't get D's in school or else Dad has to make another donation and that comes out of my allowance.
- Keep my nose clean. Nobody thinks cocaine powder is a fashion accessory.
- Start a business.
- Get 1 million dollar "loan" from my parents.
- Have my parent's lawyer "talk" to the town council about why I didn't need permits for my business.
- Graduate college and activate my trust fund!
See rich people work hard to get rich.
-
-
-
-
750$ a month changed the lives of people that had nothing? Yeah, right. Obviously!
-
Studies that test obvious expectations are actually super important. Sometimes the results are not what you expect, and the rest of the time, you have a study to point to whenever someone tries to say there's no evidence of that outcome.
-
The problem is this is the umpteenth study in the US alone. We know it works. It's just a bunch of rich people crying because they'd lose leverage over their "workers".
-
Wow, that's a big deal to me to learn that. I would have never considered that. Thanks a lot, very bro of you.
-
-
Well, there is an opinion that homeless people would use all money for booze, tobacco and drugs, etc. A study like this helps to contradict such opinion.
-
It isn't listed here in the citation, but tobacco, alcohol and drugs represented 2% of the expenses.
An important bit of information if someone's gonna use it as an argument.
-
-
-
I wish we have UBI.
-
ubi is unfortunately not really feasible from an economical standpoint, unless the amount is really low; then it can probably be funded by taxes, even within the current system...
but tbh I don't think it's worth it...
i think focus should be put on making work/the job market more fair and inclusive to everyone instead.-
In the future, it could be implemented by taxing robots. But even then, there is no guarantee that a future with UBI is as rosy as it is made to be.
-
-
-
One red flag here is that they don't mention how they chose whom to give the stipend to.
That being said I think its a great idea and correlates with other studies that show that money is the best thing you can offer someone who's struggling. Not food, not shelter, money.
I'm not an American but this will be tough to sell as you guys are notorious for porking away public funds (e.g. covid payouts) so this is much more complex than the article implies.
-
easiest way to avoid misuse is to give it to all. if your doing alright you will pay more tax equal to what you get, if your struggling it will be a boost, if your in mills/bills club you will pay more than your getting. Anyone who falls to the struggling level would have it immediately though with no paperwork or offices to go to and less bureaucracy to pay for (have to add this for the folks who don't see why its helps them if they are not getting a net gain)
-
Agree. Simple systems are more resistant to corruption.
-
you're = you are
Your = possession
-
For the purpose of this study, though, they did not give it to all. There was a control group that was not getting any money whatsoever, along with...ya know, the rest of the homeless in the area that weren't part of the study.
If all participants were chosen entirely at random, ok, but if there was a selection process, then that's going to affect the results.
-
-
-
No. Shit.
-
So then should we be giving beggars money instead of giving them food so they don’t “spend it on alcohol”, as a lot of people believe? Or are roadside beggars a specific class of homeless that just can’t be trusted?
-
I think it’s more that if you give someone who needs literally like $20,000 to get their life together $4, there’s nothing practical they can do with that other than buy a beer or deal with daily needs. You need enough money to plan with, coming in in a regular way, to be a regular member of society, not random bits of money thrown at you from a car.
-
Give people whatever you want. Once you give it them, it's theirs to do with as they please.
-
-
Seeing as California has one of the worst homelessness problems in the U.S., it seems like a great testing ground for this policy. Maybe if they pass this into law and it helps them reduce their homelessness population, it could potentially be adopted elsewhere.
That being said, California is no stranger to permissive laws with respect to the homeless, and that’s part of the reason their homeless population is so high, so…I’m skeptical, but willing to be proven wrong.
-
Another factor is that you're a lot less likely to freeze to death living on the street in California than in a lot of states.
If you are homeless, hopping a freight train south can be a simple survival tactic
-
-
I love the idea of this experiment and my hope is that it leads to some real programs that ultimately lead to UBI, however I hate the article... specifically the headline: "No Questions Asked"... then they go and start asking questions about how the money was spent. How about '$750 a month, no strings attached', or '$750 a month to spend how they want'?
Words have meaning and this should be important to people such as journalists who make a living through using words.
-
We give people money like that in Ireland and while it helps, it doesn't solve anything.
-
Why do you say it doesn't solve anything? Are you suggesting the rate of homelessness in Ireland is unaffected by the program?
-
There's still a lot of homeless people. I'd agree that there would likely be more if we gave nothing.
-
-