Denver experimented with giving people $1,000 a month. It reduced homelessness and increased full-time employment, a study found.

Every time I see an experiment like this it’s wildly successful and then never made into any kind of law or permanent social program.

Simply put, a lot of people hate socialism aka "I'm paying so you can get something for free". I'm all for it.
My 73 year old father supports Trump (not one of the crazy people, just misguided) and hates Biden. He said one of the biggest things that Biden did that pissed him off was student loan forgiveness because my dad said he had to work 3 jobs in the early 70s to put himself through college (which he dropped out of and went into the electrical trade), so everyone else should have to struggle like he did, regardless of the fact that college cost him like $2,000 a semester and it costs like $12-15 grand now, assuming you're not living on campus.
- That’s such a sad argument. I heard a great counter to that line. Imagine we discovered a cure for cancer. This line of reasoning would say “well my mom suffered and died of cancer so why should others get a cure?”
- It most certainly did not cost him $2000 per semester in the early 70s. It cost about $2000 for a full year at a private university. Around $500 if he went to a public school.
  https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_320.asp
  And that's in 2007 money! $500 in 2007 converted to the early 70s is $90 to $100. Minimum wage was $1.60 per hour, so he would have to work 2 weeks at minimum wage to afford public school. 7 weeks for private school.
  What a burden! He might have to give up part of his summer!
- I hate that THAT is the argument against loan forgiveness. No one is making the actual argument - that this doesn't fix the systemic issues that caused the debt in the first place and will actually make it worse for future generations.
  Student loan reform is what we need. Loan forgiveness without reform will cause tuition prices to increase for future generations.
  It's millenials doing a "fuck you, gen z, I got mine" and we should be better than that.
- Does he have any grandchildren? Sometimes people feel this way only about “others” and have considerably different feelings about how “we” should be treated.
- so everyone else should have to struggle like he did
  Remind him that as parents we're supposed to leave the world a better place for our kids.
The sad truth is current capitalism would ruin it.
If you have a whole city UBI then rent and prices would immediately inflate to siphon that away.
You'd need robust price laws beforehand, and that's unpopular. Otherwise it's just a tax-to-overlords pipeline
- Funny how capitalism seems to always stand in the way of doing anything objectively good. I guess the homeless will just have to hold on until we figure out how to do welfare in a capitalist economy.
- Sure, prices inflate... and the guy who had $0 to buy nothing at the cheaper prices, still has $1000 to buy something at inflated prices.
- Yeah, I'm definitely glad we don't have UBI that's proven to help a lot of people people because if we did, landlords and corporations would theoretically raise rent. Instead, landlords and corporations are constantly raising rent in excess of inflation and we also don't have UBI.
Every time I see this it's a small group within a larger capitalist society. So of course the results are beneficial to the recipients; it's not really proving anything in that respect.
The problem as I see it is how to make it work as its own self-sustaining economic system.
- That’s a worthwhile point. However the whole trick with capitalism is to have some counterbalances in it so it doesn’t become an absolute jungle. The SNAP program is a minor program within the scope of capitalism but it’s aimed at preventing the absolute worst of the worst outcomes.
  So small anti-capitalist programs are actually an essential part of capitalism. Unless you want to have absolutely no floor and watch 5-10% of people literally starve.
- The problem as I see it is how to make it work as its own self-sustaining economic system.
  Wouldn't that be a loan?
I think part of it is that these might not have an effect on perception of homeless people quantity.
The people who are helped by the $1k were likely able to show up for it and otherwise be stable enough. If see them on the street walking around you might not realize they are homeless.
When people complain about homeless, they usually are talking about ‘mentally ill homeless people’. These people probably can’t finish this program
- Complete what program the money was provided with no strings attached. I also saw no selection criteria so I don’t know why you think this group was hand selected for maximum results. Any decent study would randomize the participants so I’m sure a statistically proportional number of mentally ill homeless also got the payments.
  And as for the part about it not effecting the perception of homelessness, directly from the article:
  The guaranteed income also dramatically reduced visible homelessness
That's because they often focus on those that just needed a few grand to get off the street which isn't the cause of most homelessness. We should be doing this for those that need it but a program like this won't help the chronically unhoused who tend to be mentally ill and/or have addiction issues.

Similarly, Colorado had a program to give out free birth control and it reduced abortions by like 30%. But Republicans shut the program down because it isn't about saving babies, it's about controlling women.

Yeah if it was possible they would have brought womens rights back to the 1930's if they could.
- That is completely ridiculous. Republicans have no interest in bringing civil rights back to the 1930's.
  Their goal is the 1830's.

Spend all the money that's spent trying to find welfare cheats (and cost more than they could possibly save anyway) on basic income instead.
Try looking at who they chose to give money to as they usually are not the chronically unhoused who represent much of the unhoused population
- the chronically unhoused who represent much of the unhoused population
  You got a source? I found it's only 30%
Those who received $500 a month or more had seen the biggest gains.
God I hate such empty bullshit. Of course the only group that got less, only 1/10th of the next group, saw by far the smallest gains. What a completely empty sentence.
- It's a study and they're reporting the findings. That's who science works, my guy.
  One outcome could have been that those who received them most spent it all on cocaine and hookers. Now, some may say that's gains, and some others may say that's a loss, but in the end, they defined the parameters for what gains means, and cocaine and hookers ain't it.
  But more to the point, it has been demostrarte that wealth asking won't give you the biggest gains. Just look up all the people who won the lottery and are worse off today.
- It's a finding. Not a statement. It's an observation of the data. Opinions are not valid. If you feel that "of course that is obvious duuuhh" well you can't actually make that claim unless you have data and the data reflects this. That's how science works.

My first thought too, but at least it's something. One day someone might be able to weave the mountain of evidence in support of UBI into their political campaign.

CAN YOU IMAGINE? HAVING A BASIC INCOME CAUSED PEOPLE TO GET HOUSING?????

I bought a peanut butter and crack sammich
Landlords wet dream, they can double the rate on their shithole without functional utilities because 'the market can support it'
- You say that like landlords aren't going to do it anyway. This argument is predicated on the idea that rates would not go up otherwise, and that's certainly not true.

Imagine that! Actually having money allowing homeless people to get a home and increase their chances of going out and actually getting a job so they can keep their quality of life up from being homeless!

Who could have ever guessed that people with homes are more likely to try and get jobs to keep their homes? /s

getting a job so they can keep their quality of life up from being homeless!
And paying taxes while having that job. So even from a cold hearted financial perspective, this might be one of the cheapest ways to deal with the problem
- This is what the "social security is communism!" crowd just just doesn't get. Investing a tiny amount up front actually makes you money (or at least saves you exponentially more later). And hey, people get to not be homeless at the same time!
I read a lot about this and I have a friend who does social work with homeless people.
There are so many different situations for homeless people. The ones who can better their situation with $1k/mo are truly down on their luck. They need a boost and they can get back on their feet. These are the "invisible homeless" because they are generally ashamed of their situation.
Then you have crackheads. The money won't help them.
Then you have the mentally ill. They need medical treatment. Cash is less important.
Finally, you have people who have given up. They don't want to leave their tent. They've been homeless so long it's their life. They prefer it. It's familiar. I don't know how money affects this situation.

i honestly just hate reading stuff like this; the study is always a glowing success but we never ever do anything with the results

I swear there has been a big uptick on the other site of videos depicting and celebrating the brutalization of shoplifters.
I think people are increasingly inclined to just hate poor people.
- The human brain is hardwired for an "Us vs. Them" viewpoint. As Bush once said, "You're either with us, or you're against us."
  Advertisers, politicians, and those that seek to influence, they know this. They don't project any shades of grey or balance into their arguments. They attempt to "match groups" with you, and then point out that other group, over there, aren't they terrible, we should do something about that.
  So you get videos going, "Look at those shoplifters, doing wrong things! We're glad that they're getting their just desserts, aren't we?"
  They don't show anything that might evoke some empathy in their target audience. You don't want people to identify with your enemy, you want them to identify with you.

This is not a UBI Universal Basic Income; this is a CBI Conditional Basic Income. The conditions are currently being selected and being homeless.

Also this program basically already exists. It is just TANF selected for homelessness instead low-income families with children.

Edit: Universal not Unconditional

- Its usually cheaper to give everyone a small amount of money than it is to set up and pay a whole department of civil servants to figure out who qualifies and who doesn't.
  Also the poor and disabled suffer disproportionately when you start putting strict restrictions on financial aid. Just look at universal credit in the UK, in trying to save money/protect against the boogyman of welfare queens, they government has unqualified assessors trying to fail people even if they have serious disabilities.

Yet anyone in a position of authority will still parrot giving ppl money will make them lazy

There are two major concerns I have with UBI.
It's highly inflationary.
It fosters dependency, and it's an economic-political death spiral. People on UBI vote for those who support higher UBI. Inflation increases due to increased monetary velocity. People demand higher UBI due to cost of living increases. Votes go to those who promise higher UBI, etc. The cycle continues until you're wiping your ass with currency or some form of CBDC is implemented to stop the bleeding.
- Do we have any sort of previous example of this happening? Was this ever tested? If no: a test is seemingly well worth it.
- It’s highly inflationary.
  False. It is only inflationary if the the government prints money to fund it. If instead the government funds it by cutting unnecessary spending or increasing tax revenue in some way than it is not inflationary. There is the same amount of money in circulation but it is just moving between hands instead of staying in a bank account.
- It's highly inflationary.
  I think this is a great example of what rich people think of us. This user would prefer that people stay homeless rather than cut back on their own luxuries so that others could have a more decent basic standard of living. Those with stable basic housing feel like they're living the normal life they have earned, while a homeless person is someone that doesn't want to put in the work to carry themselves. The wealthy think the same way about the middle class: we want vacation days, adequate healthcare, a proper justice system, and decent wages/fair business market without earning it. However, a person with a 1 bedroom apartment they can call home is a king to a homeless person.
  It fosters dependency, and it's an economic-political death spiral. People on UBI vote for those who support higher UBI.
  Here, we see the privilege. They argue that it would foster dependency because the poor would vote for better standards of living rather than contribute to society. To think this way, we have to ignore that someone cannot meaningfully contribute to society without adequate housing and stability. We would also have to ignore our own hypocrisy in that we argue that our standard of living is dependent on the exploitation of the homeless.
  These are the very same arguments that the wealthy elite use. If they pay more taxes, then the poor will slippery slope the vote by electing politicians that continue to increase taxes on the rich, while also becoming dependent on that revenue.
  I am in no way attacking this user. It's a common mentality across the world. Instead, I'm using their comment to point out how this mentality works regardless of social class: 1) my efforts have created my wealth, while everyone else that is poorer just doesn't work to earn it, and 2) helping the lazy poorer people makes them dependent on my work. Repeat these arguments in some fashion all the way down to the poorest person on Earth 🔁
- Also the actual research on it is not as rosy as some seem to think.

Or use them as a political demon to rally our base?

Couple UBI with various social services made easily available--homelessness/poverty can be stricken a devastating blow. Western economies shouldn't even have the amount of poverty that they do. They're in a position to completely transform that if they wished.

There are so many countries, like the aforementioned United States, where astronomical government spending can be cut and used for tending to citizen health and stability. The billions upon billions upon billions of dollars spent on things that ultimately don't matter...

😤🤯😖😵

I read far too much fiction which builds hope in the kinds of society that we can become. But each time I close those books, I'm reminded of why reality hurts so much. If only those with power truly cared about what really matters. Life is so short and this is how we spend it. 😭

Ack!

No... I'll continue hoping. It's my nature. There are those few who keep trying. They press in. And historically, things are better for human kind. I just which I could have lived through the best of it.

This is consistent with what they were finding up in Ontario with their basic income pilot before their leader decided - with zero evidence or consequences - to eliminate the program illegally against contract and ethics.

People stepping out of poverty and able to give back to the community.

It really makes sense. Everyone needs x money for food and absolute basic necessities. Take y% tax from the sallary to cover those up.
If you get fired you still get a little bit of money. Or you propably more easily try to get a better work because you at least get some money if you are jobless for a while.

Another study, another proposed policy we'll never see

It's nice that homeless people were able to enjoy a significantly higher quality of life but inflation made my latte $7 so I don't think we should be giving away free handouts.
/s
I put that /s because you ravenous Lemmy commies can't read sarcasm even if it was written by Marx. I'm onto you guys 😉
Yeah these kinds of studies just keep happening, get the government refuses to do anything to make the problems go away. It's almost as if the country is run by greedy capitalists who have no interest in seeing anyone of the working class survive without daily struggle and hardship. Weird.

I'm glad they are getting that money (or were?), but the fucked up thing is knowing that's literally more than I get in a month working 30 hours a week of the hardest job I've had in 15 years. 🙃

I'm betting the two people who downvoted me would happily tell me to just get a better job. 😂

I wish you got that money too.
You are getting paid less than $8.33/hr at a challenging job?
Unless you're getting hella personal satisfaction you need to pound pavement.
- The hardest jobs I've had have all been the lowest paying.
  Higher paying jobs tend to have higher entry requirements but it also means the employer actually values you (like, literally places a high monetary value on you because at the end of the day that is what capitalism demands)
  This idea that low paying jobs are easy is wrong. Being replaceable makes you vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
- I'm not joking when I say that I have put in at least 1-3 applications every single day for 3 months now and all the while making calls to the companies to check on the application process. I could go into elaborate detail about how much pavement pounding I've done, but honestly I'm just too tired and exhausted with life and just want to tell you to go fuck yourself.
How does that work?!
mind you if there was reasonable social security like a payment to the jobless, exploitation like that would be harder. It feels like countries like the US fight social security to make it easier to pay people almost nothing, by keeping the danger of homelessness and lack of healthcare real.
not presuming you're in the US, that income would honestly make more sense in a less developed part of the world. I hope that's not an insult 😬
- It feels like an insult. I'm in Indiana.

Turns out that when human beings give eachother a break, good things happen.

Those who received $500 a month or more had seen the biggest gains.

They only checked at the 6 month mark. I'd be interested to see what happens at the end of the 1 year period. The goal would be independence.

What does that say about how much employers are paying, that some small UBI helps stabilize their full-time workers incomes?

We know these programs work, but the American public won’t admit it has a sadist streak. We delight in the suffering of those we have decided deserve suffering. It’s part of the culture to engage in shaming and punishing one another to the point where it’s ritual. We repeat verbatim paradigmatic lines of justification. We actively reject opportunities that function better than (in)formal punishment in a wide variety of areas: parenting, teaching, criminal justice, jobs, etc. At some point, if we don’t own and improve upon that programming, I don’t see what else would change our trajectory, save for tragedy.

I am a fan of a UBI (Universal Basic Income) but these limited CBI (Conditional Basic Income) trials are not really comparable to a long-term implementation of either version.

Taking a specific number of people and giving them cash is certainly going to improve their lives. Giving cash to everyone in a city or state, including new arrival, is asking for local inflation and a population explosion. If the area is empty and has abundant natural resources that can be converted into jobs it will probably work out, at least for a while. If it is a major city with most of the resources and land already in use, and there is not much demand for workers, then the program's budget is likely to be overrun fairly quickly.

The study does not go over it's selection criteria so it's impossible to tell how the participants skew. For example, if they selected for those without drug addictions, this data is no surprising. As a relatively right leaning person who isn't against some social welfare programs, I believe having no drug addiction should be a prerequisite to any of these types of programs. Else you are just feeding their addiction further. There would be literally 0 incentive to quit if you have all your basic needs taken care off while you waste my tax money on drugs

I'd say allow addicts but mandate provided use reduction care.
- use reduction? how about no use at all. Not one dime of tax payer money should go into the hands of seedy fentanyl dealers.
Medicine Hat, AB realized that without stable shelter, it's nearly impossible to kick an addiction
Their program of trying to help people get off the street first looks like the most viable option to ending homelessness
- Can we find a middle ground where perhaps you have up to 3 months to be off drugs or else you lose your benefits? Of course with proper care supplied. People need to know they are putting their immediate comfort at risk if they continue to use drugs

easy come easy go. payday has to be wild at the encampment

I know Imma get down voted for this opinion. But from what I can see the Study says that 100% (that means people in the experiment and control group) applied for a job so there is really cute 0% difference in people that got money and people that didnt.

Of course you're going to get down voted for your inane take.

This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.