“They did not spend more money on alcohol or drugs, contrary to what people believe, and instead they spent the money on rent, food, housing, transit, furniture, a used car, clothes. It’s entirely the opposite of what people think they’re going to do with the money.”
Unsurprisingly, when people are given enough money to make immediate, material improvements to their life, they do.
If you’re homeless and miserable, suffering psychological and/or physical pain, and someone gives you $20, the most immediate relief for that suffering is often escapism into things like drugs and alcohol. In situations of extreme distress, humans tend to favor solutions that immediately, if only temporarily, remove the stress. We see this behavior all across humanity.
So the thing you spend money on in that situation iis typically the thing that will, in your belief, most improve your short - and medium-term condition. Give them $20, they’ll get alcohol. Give them $500, warm clothes and other durable QOL improvements. $7500? A car. $50,000? Long-term shelter.
Sadly, this study isn’t telling us anything that psychologists and social workers didn’t already know :/
But not in 100% of cases and therefore it’s not worth trying. /s
It is a difficult problem, because there really are some mentally disturbed people in that population too. You can absolutely tackle the problem slowly and one case at a time lift most people out of that situation. But any solution that treats them as a group will bring along the 10% of them that will literally shit all over everything you’ve tried to build.
I think there’s a “welfare queen” mentality to that. There will always be people who will abuse the system or be unable or unwilling to utilize the service properly. That doesn’t make it not worth doing. No solution can work universally, as you said. But it must be applied universally.
Put another way: everyone deserves a chance, even if they fuck it up. But many don’t believe that your parents being super poor because of generational trauma, or mental illness, or addiction are significant impediments to success. Bootstrap mentality. Anyone can and should make, and if they don’t it’s obviously their own fault
I mean, it’s only a difficult problem if you consider helping ninety people improve their lives at the cost of spending taxpayer money to support ten people’s bad habits to be difficult. The real issue here is the number of people (conservative and liberal “centrist” alike) who consider it more important to uphold their personal view of morality than it is to help our fellow humans.
Give them money? But some of them might do the bad thing, so obviously no.
Removed by mod
It economics and business the same concept is referred to as “barriers to entry”.
Basically upfront costs, regulations, or social standards that have to be overcome prior to competing in a market.
For the homeless to re-enter the job market they need: a safe permanent address, appropriate clothing, adequate food, basic furniture (bed, table, etc), internet access & telephone, haircut/styling/grooming, and transportation for several months.
If they do not have these basics they are very unlikely be hired for a job.
$7,500 is enough in most regions to overcome these initial barriers.
If the barrier is drug abuse/mental health issues, giving them $7,500 will not work until those issues are dealt with.
deleted by creator
“The study did not include people who are street-entrenched or who have serious addictions or mental health issues”
Seems kind of disingenuous to leave out people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs. No, that’s not most of them, but yes that is some of them.
The study simple ignores them so how can one make conclusions like “contrary to what people believe” and “the opposite of what people think” without actually considering the subject in question
Those need a entirely different type of help.
And probably also money
Yeah but getting them clean and/or the mental healthcare they need should come first.
Actually, no. Giving them money, a personal shelter, and general baselines support goes a massively long way and sets a proper foundation that then later allows people to get clean and improve their mental health much easier.
So, no, first they need to have their independence and dignity respected, and then the other stuff.
Tbf, I work closely with this population and would prefer the money be funneled into public housing that doesn’t evict people for using, and things like that, rather than just handed to people who have no framework to use it and possibly unstable executive function. For one thing, the resources tend to go much further. For another, many of my patients are put in danger by sudden cash windfalls.
However I’d still prefer them to get a wad of cash to the current solution, which is “kick them out of anywhere you find them and hope they eventually just vanish”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Maybe it’s ethics… Giving an addict that much money could cause an overdose or other serious harm.
I mean, a study of how non homeless people spend money would probably be skewed and ignore drug addicts too. Studies ignore outliers that would have an obvious affect on what’s being studied.
Are you wondering what a drug addict spends money on?
I’m wondering what is the percentage of homeless that are addicts or have mental health issues. You seem to be confident they are outliers, but what is the percentage? Is it 1%? 25%? 50%?
Seems like a logical fallacy to me without knowing that stat.
“According to SAMHSA, 38% of homeless people abused alcohol while 26% abused other drugs.” (These are overlapping statistics)
“Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders”
This means roughly 11% of homeless people started their abuse as a consequence of becoming homeless, while 22% of homeless people may have become homeless due to their substance abuse.
So you’d essentially be proposing that we don’t help 78% of all homeless people because the other 22% of them would misuse the money.
And that’s without even discussing the fact that many of those 22% could be rehabilitated if they’re provide with appropriate healthcare on top of the monetary benefits
So you’d essentially be proposing that we don’t help
Excuse me? I haven’t proposed anything. I’m simply asking questions because the headline/description seemed misleading to me and not adequately conveying the full story/situation. Purely from a math/stats/logic point of view
It’s basically rule #1 to not give an addict money, but give them things they can’t trade for material value instead.
Sure, but a properly administered program would identify those with substance abuse problems and send them to (free) healthcare facilities
A lot of homeless or unhoused people do not have severe addictions or mental health issues, at first.
It would be great if this could be implemented as a one shot. If someone has been homeless for more than 1 year, they get $7.5k as their one time use resurrect. Unfortunately I think employee protection laws would need to be put in place (like most of the rest of the world already has) for this to have any real effect.
