this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
755 points (97.8% liked)

News

23310 readers
3675 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20231221131158/https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-12-19/750-a-month-no-questions-asked-improved-the-lives-of-homeless-people

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 144 points 10 months ago (8 children)

$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.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 63 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You want universal anything it’s an uphill battle because of the cattle shouting about the cost or some nonsense.

[–] deft@ttrpg.network 13 points 10 months ago

Those who will make more money with UBI will just be mad they get taxed slightly more.

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The universal healthcare one baffles me because it would save businesses money and increase employee retention. But corporations still fight against it.

[–] ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works 37 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Having healthcare tied to your employer is both a way for companies to pay less while offering more benefits to entice new workers and also keep workers from fighting too hard for their own rights because now maintaining a job is directly related to health. If we had universal healthcare, companies would have to compete more directly on wage and that would cost them more. Providing healthcare, while negotiating for deals for said healthcare means they can say that they are providing more benefits than they actually pay for.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 116 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 85 points 10 months ago (26 children)

Giving people money improves their quality of life?

Who would have guessed?

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 82 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“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!”

[–] waz@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 63 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 57 points 10 months ago (17 children)

$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.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] ares35@kbin.social 43 points 10 months ago (4 children)

$750 a month would be life altering for me.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 33 points 10 months ago (7 children)

All these UBI experiments ever seem to demonstrate is the "BI" part.

But the part that needs to be demonstrated, IMHO, is the "U".

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (35 children)

Well we can't do that until we do that. And shitting on the experiments means we'll never do the Universal part.

load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

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?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Kushia@lemmy.ml 13 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

Grow shrooms; do both.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (7 children)

How did they collect data on what these homeless people were spending the money on? Sounds like some questions were asked after all...

[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They asked the questions afterwards...

[–] Pogbom@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Exactly, they gave it to them and said "do whatever you want with it" then just checked what they did later.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago

Receipts probably

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] anonymous222@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

750$ a month changed the lives of people that had nothing? Yeah, right. Obviously!

[–] TheHotze@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pound_heap@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 18 points 10 months ago
[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›