Yup. Programmes that have experimented with giving homeless people hundreds in no-rules cash find that within a couple of months most of them have secured accommodation and reconnected with family and friends. After a while the majority are in paid employment.
Who would have guessed that the most of the problems of extreme poverty could be solved with money?!
Next you're going to tell me you can solve homelessness by giving people housing
Obviously, we should stop people from sleeping outside by adding pikes everywhere. That's how you solve the problem!
But I'm using these bootstraps, they can go find their own!
I almost thought this was going a different way. I'm happy to be wrong.
I imagine some capitalist, right-wing fucker is screaming at their screen going "nu-uhhh" and furiously typing that you're wrong despite having done zero research.
I'm employed, and I live like I'm in poverty. As much as I want to lift up the homeless, I would also appreciate fair wages for the employed.
Since rent/housing has gone insane, I'm having a hard time making things work on the money I'm making. I'm well over the "poverty" line and I can't afford to put fuel in my car and buy name brand products, even if I wanted to. Products like.... Idk, Campbell's.
I knew such a right wing fucker had to exist, so I found him for you: https://youtu.be/lNgqNE78N1g
Guy runs two channels, both animated right wing propaganda. That's the more serious of the two, the other has shit like this: https://youtu.be/X6Xe3SGUH6A
But to take it a bit further, high capacity public infrastructure can go a long way towards improving the lives of low income working people.
Trains, buses, and subways can eliminate the need to own and maintain a car. Public housing can get people off the street, where they won't be at risk of harm from interpersonal violence or exposure to severe weather. Public education and public health care have more benefits than I could list.
At an individual level, "Just give people money" is an immediate and useful generic panacea. But at a more macro level, geographic access to grocery stores and clinics and colleges and bus stops and permanent homes and factories matter just as much.
Clearly, the Venn of those who're empowered to make those changes and those who've played at least a couple hours of SimCity is two estranged circles.
It needs to be quality of those things, as well. And they know this. It's designed to keep us too tired, broken physically and mentally to get off the wheel, and not just under it, either. There's enough for everyone, just some few want to hoard it like decades worth of paper, not because it may come in handy, just because bloodsport is still entertainment, no matter how well they dress it.
It needs to be quality of those things, as well.
Oh absolutely. I have a bus stop on my corner, but it only picks up every 2 hours and then doesn't go to downtown.
There’s enough for everyone, just some few want to hoard it like decades worth of paper, not because it may come in handy, just because bloodsport is still entertainment, no matter how well they dress it.
Kropotkin was saying it over a century ago. Bread Book, baby.
People periodically ask how a country like Denmark or New Zealand or Japan can have such high standards of living relative to their individual incomes. Or why a country like the UK or Saudia Arabia can be so rich and yet appear so poor from a street level view.
So much boils down to who has access to quality infrastructure.
But to take it a bit further, high capacity public infrastructure can go a long way towards improving the lives of low income working people.
Trains, buses, and subways can eliminate the need to own and maintain a car.
The real problem is zoning. If the density is high enough (and mixed-use enough), people can just fucking walk places whether you've got public transit or not!
Even in areas where we have zoned for dense real estate, we've built these four lane boulevards with barely a crosswalk between them.
At some level, we could use a little zoning. Pedestrianization isn't going to happen via the free market.
At an individual level, "Just give people money" is an immediate and useful generic panacea.
But at a more macro level, geographic access to grocery stores and clinics and colleges and bus stops and permanent homes and factories matter just as much.FTFY.
But at a more macro level, geographic access to grocery stores and clinics and colleges and bus stops and permanent homes and factories matter just as much.
Here’s some emphasis for you. “Give them money” is a part of the solution, but it can only go so far when they lack access to places to spend that money. And no, delivery is not a real solution. It’s a very expensive bandaid.
I Sweden a liberal lobby group suggested "build apartments without kitchens" for poor people. It is so fucking dystopian.
Isn't that just a hotel room?
Housing without kitchens has come up in modern history multiple times: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-frankfurt-kitchen/
their designs just had single family homes with kitchens. But Marie Howland convinced them to sketch in small groups of kitchen-free houses, each with access to a shared kitchen, where residents would take turns working.
Austin thought it could be a city of kitchen-less houses. And she thought that the food could to each house on a system of underground trains. She drew maps upon maps, and tons of floor plans. She published her ideas in a journal called ‘The Western Comrade’ and even applied to patent her underground food train idea.
But the kitchen-less house movement still didn’t die. In England, the urban planner Ebenezer Howard actually incorporated kitchen-less homes into some of his “garden city” communities. He called these homes “cooperative quadrangles.” They had a shared courtyard and shared kitchen, surrounded by smaller kitchen-less dwellings.
Those are called "dormitories", and they work very well on college campuses and in the military.
You need a whole host of communal facilities to make them work, including a cafeteria. Dorm life isn't for everyone, but it is certainly feasible.
When I took out a loan from my bank I swear to God for the first 6 months they were absolutely terrified of my spending habits and I got emails daily about how to spend and and how my spending habits were reckless. I've made every payment I don't understand what f****** high horse they were coming from.
I admit that I haven't finished the book "Utopian for Realists", but the author showed numerous studies and practical examples that universal basic income works. And believe it or not, Richard Nixon was close to introducing UBI but his Friedmanite-advisors dissuaded him.
I'm definitely in the not believe it Camp because the president doesn't have that kind of unilateral power to just apply something. It would have required the support of the house and the Senate.
I suppose my comment could have been phrased better, but by introducing I mean he wanted to forward UBI to be legislated/legalised by the house and Senate.
I'm gonna be that guy, since there are a lot of comments saying that "research suggests".
Source?
I do fully agree with it. The drug trade is impossible to stop, but decriminalisation and funding of healthcare will help many that are homeless. From tackling these aspects, helping those that want to free roam to do so safely, basically leaves you with those that just need some money to get back on their feet.
But, even if these things seem obvious, they need a source if you're going to speak from a position of fact.
Assuming the link works, this is a great resource of research papers on the topic - https://www.givedirectly.org/cash-evidence-explorer/
Here's one local to me. Slightly old but quite relevant.
There are a bunch of interacting factors, too. Something like 10% of the homeless are chronically homeless and don't really have good prospects of being able to give themselves housing stability even if given money. This population in particular seems to be better served by the "Housing First" movement where they are given homes and supervised so that they can then get the treatment they need relating to substance abuse, mental health, etc., from a position of at least having a place to go home to. Here is a summary with citations to studies.
But for the housing insecure people who are at risk of becoming part of the 80% of the homeless experiencing transient homelessness, or the already homeless in that category, dropping money in their lap might be an effective way to improve their lives permanently, putting them on a better trajectory. From what I've seen of the reporting of very recent studies, many of which were complicated by the fact that a pandemic happened right in the middle of the experiments, there is some evidence that giving money directly is helpful. But there's open questions about whether it should be a lump sum, whether big numbers ($500+/month) result in something different from small numbers ($25/month), etc.
So yeah, I think even if we start from the assumption that giving directly is more effective than in-kind support like free/subsidized food or healthcare or housing or childcare, or treatment for mental health or substance abuse, we have to figure out which populations are best served by which intervention, and whether temporary/time limited programs are as cost effective as long term commitments, etc.
Ok but have we tried telling them about Jesus instead of giving them money? They're poor because they're bad. If you give them money then they'll use it to be bad again, which will keep them poor. /s
Fun story. My FIL couldn't afford to travel to our wedding. I loaned him 3k for travel and a tux and hotel fare for his family. That Christmas we got one of those books from Ollies titled "500 ways to save money" from him. I lost the fight to send it back with torn out pages and a note that would say "1-500. Don't lend money to family".
Amazingly shitty.
Idk... Maybe he knew he sucks with money so couldn't offer his own wisdom on the topic, but wanted to help his kid avoid his mistakes however he could
The wealthy's deathgrip on their money is phenominally strong
Guillotines have a way of loosening one's grip.
no that would be socialism, silly
How dare these people wanting to improve the life of the poors by giving them handouts. For shame.
*I'm a "poor" and I approve this sarcasm.
Noo poor people will just use up the money if we give them some!!1!
Then we'll have to give them more pie, and they'll just eat the pie! Eventually they'll eat all of the pie and the poor rich folks won't have any pie :(
Yeah, I'm still salty about that vile skit.
Money is religion now. It's scary to be rational about it. There's a dogma and that's that. Any other way and we freak out.
Ok reusing clothes is not a bad thing. Even in a perfect world with no poverty, it's important to reuse.
Edit 3: one last edit that I'm putting at the top because I'm not sure if people are only reading part of what I've written, jumping to conclusions and then putting words into my mouth; or if I've just been very bad at conveying what I'm trying to say.
Firstly: I'm arguing from an American perspective, something I failed to specify.
Secondly: money is great, however, many people need more than money. By all means, give them money, but make sure they have other resources in case they need it. If nothing else, there are a lot of people in homelessness or poverty with serious mental health needs. Money isn't going to help if they can't afford healthcare.
Thirdly: I also failed to give examples of what I meant by, do something else too. I meant, cap rent, build public housing, ensure that people have access to food even when CEOs are renting out pineapples, etc.
Finally: the US runs on greed. Prices in the US are outstripping wages dramatically because CEOs realized they could charge more. I think the reason why giving money works in studies is because CEOs don't know who's getting the handouts; if they did, they'd absolutely try to fleece them for the assistance money. That's why doing it universally, so that CEOs know that a lot of people are getting additional money, without any other form of assistance, will just lead to people being priced out of life again.
Not sure how much I'll contribute or respond after this. I'm feeling kinda discouraged due to how many people are putting words in my mouth (it may be a misunderstanding, but it's still demoralizing).
Oh my god, I'm using fish as a metaphor for money, and teaching someone to fish as a metaphor for ensuring their ability to provide for themselves. That's what the metaphor is about. Ensuring people's ability to provide for themselves. Is that really what y'all are confused about? If you see me referring to "fish" then I'm talking about money, not food.
I'm not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.
And you know what, maybe they just are that way, maybe they're just cursed to always be a dependent on someone. However, if that's the case then they're going to need way more help than just fish. In the meantime though, maybe treat them like human beings that are down on their luck but otherwise capable of supporting themselves. Yeah, make sure they have food, a roof over their head, water, toilets and so on, but don't stop there. That's why I'm saying this, there may be people who see your post and think that just throwing money at the problem will make it go away. It'll help, but it's not gonna fix it 100%.
Edit: I'm not sure why it's controversial to say that people need more help than just money. Personally? If I was homeless or in poverty, I'd want more than just money. Like, I'm not saying to not give people who are homeless or in poverty money, but what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't stop there.
Edit 2: I don't understand why people are so confused here. I'm not saying it won't work for some people, but there are people that it won't work for. To repeat something I said further along, in my experience, there are people who take these things literally. In my experience, there are people who would look at this meme, say, "sounds good, let's do that" and then get mad when it doesn't work for everyone.
I'm not saying that money won't help a lot of people; it would. It's just that there are people who will take this literally and believe it's the only thing you have to do.
Most people who are homeless were a paycheck or two away from homelessness.
It's easier for the housed to become homeless, than for the homeless to become housed. It's systemic, and a good chunk of it is employers mistreating employees.
I'm not convinced that just cash will solve homelessness or poverty. It may help, but it seems like a "give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" kinda situation. Give people the fish so they can eat, but if you want them to actually be independent, then you gotta make sure they have the tools they need to do so.
I think the reason you've taken so much flak is that money isn't fish. Money can be converted into tools. Yes, of course you're right that some people won't use the money in a way which will end their homelessness, and may benefit from 'other programs'. But the meme was specifically about people objecting to the idea of giving poor people money so that they can solve their own problems. Rolling out 'other programs' is great, but the 'other programs' will be much more effective if they're not clogged with people that can solve their own problems with a bit of cash.
Right... But they gotta be able to afford to continually afford those tools. Rich people try to suck at much money out of people as possible. The moment they hear that poor people are receiving money is the moment they smell blood in the water. They'll just hike up prices in response. That's why I'm not convinced that throwing money at poor people will work.
It's not their fault.
They didn't do anything wrong.
It's the rich people who are the problem.
Get rid of the rich people or their ability to price people out of life and boom! Now the money you give poor people will remain effective. Otherwise they might be able to buy tools today, but the money might not be enough to buy tools again tomorrow.
We can choose to either provide for those who lack food, housing, and other things, or we can choose not to. We often choose not to despite having both sufficient food and shelter.
We can also choose to pursue the goal of making the poor independent.
But if we choose to leave people unprovided for, that is just what we have chosen. There is no way around that.
Making the poor independent is a separate project, in the same vein as making people stop being violent, or unhealthy, or depressed, or sick. An eternal pursuit , with a curious caveat. Because in the case of the poor, if the population of dependent poor die off while the newly improved Independent population remains, it would be a success. No more dependants is the goal, quite literally. It is treated more like ridding ourselves of leeches.
Because contribution is demanded, no matter how banale, cynical, useless, performative or downright harmful. Marketing, manipulation, waste and serving up garbage is all much better than the insufficiently productive poor. Learn to weld, only to make giant steel flower beds to decorate an apartment building, supply the ridiculous demand. Supplying something is the point, regardless of how necessary the demand is.
There's also the matter that we've chosen very explicitly to disallow the poor any power to simply leave the city and establish their of towns of rejects with the materials that exist in nature, as harvesting huge quantities of wood and clay without permissions – unlikely to be obtained – is expressly illegal. Apparently we have to, to protect the environment from people. But it's not civilization's responsibility to rectify that injustice, is it? It can just disallow you your shelter and leave it at that. Civilization does not have to compensate a man for the option it has taken away from him.
People just need enough to buy a rod
Financial education, it's practically intentional that we don't learn proper finance management and if you're family didn't manage money well (poor or rich) you'll struggle to use any money you get effectively when your out on your own
Your solution is literally just "give money"? That only works in some instances, where a person is struggling because of bad luck or whatever, but has a desire to improve their situation. But if they are a substance abuser or are mentally ill, money isn't going to help like housing would, since they either don't know what to do with it, or they prioritize drugs over shelter.
And most cases of substance abuse come from people living in a society with no community and no safety nets. Even if you give everyone a thousand bucks a month but society is stil hell, it solves very little.
Yeah it's not like there is one problem and one solution. Some turn to drugs to escape their situation or because they have bad coping mechanisms, while others get into drugs and their life falls apart because of it.
Theres a difference between homelessness and poverty.
Yes, and they require different solutions. UBI is an attempt to solve poverty, but won't do much for homelessness.
9 times out of 10, people are poor simply because they are poor, not because of some moral failing on their part. But instead we tell ourselves comforting lies that they must have done something wrong. We tell ourselves this because as long as we don't do those wrong things, we don't end up poor or homeless.
In truth, all that is necessary to be homeless is for the cost of housing to rise above the market value of your skill set. That is all. Or a severe illness is all that's really required.
I don't think it's so much a moral failing, but one of privilege in the form of being raised in a stable family, having positive role models and being taught basic life skills. If your parents weren't around to teach you these things or if you were preoccupied with survival as a kid, then you are not equipped to thrive in life. Through no fault of your own. Had you been taught some of these things, then you could be self sufficient. Of course illness, changing job markets, rental costs, inflation, and so on can impact a person's situation as well, but these can be semi reasonably planned for as well, if you know how.
I'd say with those people you just need to give the money to a care giver instead of directly to the person... But it's still just giving money without making them jump through all kinds of dehumanizing hoops
Yeah that or provide housing and help for their addiction or mental issues. Money doesn't help them at all. People need shelter and food more than they need money. Money is just a means to store value and make transactions, and in their case, those transactions are food and shelter, so why not provide those first? It doesn't help to give the societal currency if you aren't equipped to exist in that society anyway.
