• PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is a fantastic article and incredibly interesting:

    Last October, more than 800 people were enrolled in the basic-income plan, but they didn’t all receive the same stipend. There are three groups: One receives $1,000 a month for a year; another receives $6,500 up front and then $500 a month from there; and another gets just $50 a month.

    While cautioning that this was only an interim six-month follow-up for what is a yearlong program, the researchers nonetheless found stark and encouraging changes in participants’ material conditions. Those who received $500 a month or more had seen the biggest gains. At the start, fewer than 10% said they were living in their own home or apartment, while at the six-month point, more than a third said they lived in their own housing.

    Edit: The results make me think of all of these programs that are trying to get people out of homelessness should cut way back and just do a basic income with that money (with life help classes and guidance of course).

    • query@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, let’s not stop there. Our DOD could cut back, go after high income tax cheats and dodgers. There is a list for sure. FYI, Alaska has had Basic Income for awhile now. They call it something else and it fluctuates, but that’s generally what it is.

        • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alaska is super progressive on that front. It’s not UBI per se. It’s closer to what the Saudis and some other oil-based countries do.

          The basic argument is that oil, as a natural resource, belongs to Alaskans in common in the same way as air and water does. Oil companies must pay for extracting the resource, and part of that pay is directly remitted to the citizens. I think both Alaska and Alaskans should be getting more than they are, but that’s the general idea and legal justification as I understand it in practice, I believe it comes out to only a few thousand per year per person, but I’m not Alaskan and am open to correction on any of these points. It’s just something I looked into as a UBI supporter myself.

          • query@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s sort of the Libertarian version of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, if public income can exist in Libertarianism. Give everyone cash now instead of having a public agency invest it for the future.

            And yeah, it probably should be higher. Per person oil and gas income for the state of Norway was $24 000 last year (at the current exchange rate). Although I haven’t checked per capita oil and gas extraction.

        • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No not our military! Then we’ll have nothing to brag about and threaten other countries with! We don’t need to spend money on education or human welfare! We need more guns! More tanks! More jets! More drones!/s

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here’s the thing, there’s no need to cut back on anything, just be more accountable.

    • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Are you reading a different article or do you have different sourced information? They were the most vulnerable and a lot of them living on the streets.

        That’s the premise of a social experiment in Denver, where for the past few months several hundred of the city’s most vulnerable people have been given cash with no strings attached.

        Edit: grabbed the wrong quote:

        At the start, fewer than 10% said they were living in their own home or apartment, while at the six-month point, more than a third said they lived in their own housing.

        • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Given the results mirror other experiments that target successfully recent unhoused people I suspect they aren’t targeting “the most vulnerable” and that phrase is the author’s choice.

          If you work with unhoused people enough you would know “the most vulnerable people” aren’t lacking for money as much as they frequently are fighting significant mental illness. One guy that used to sleep in the parking lot if a store I worked at, Eddie, wasn’t just homeless and an alcoholic. Eddie was incredibly prone to violent hallucinations and handing guys like him $1k a month isn’t changing that.

          They are almost certainly targeting the recent homeless who has a job or recently had a job, has a credit history, and the ability to get off the streets and just needs money to do so.

          Im not saying we shouldn’t look into this as a solution to part of our unhoused problems only that we shouldn’t restrict other programs meant to address chronic homelessness in favor of this.

            • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              To be considered homeless, you just need to be without a permanent place to live. Some people are living in their car and still employed, some are couch-surfing, some are sleeping on the sidewalk and have severe drug/mental health issues.

              Housing first/financial aid is great for the first two people I mentioned, it’s not too helpful for the third. People often look at trials like this and think it’s an easy solution to homelessness while ignoring the problem just isn’t that simple because of that third group.

              All that said, if the program does a simple evaluation to determine which group people fall into and gives money/housing to those best suited for it then it’s pretty much a no-brainer that it should be widely implemented. It won’t solve homelessness, but it’ll make a really big dent.

            • Peaty@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Most are homeless doesn’t describe their particular circumstances. There are people living in their cars who have jobs and credit histories who given a few grand can easily not be homeless . That is in contrast with the guy who is incredibly schizophrenic and constantly hallucinating who hasn’t held a job in years. That guy isn’t getting off the street because you gave him cash because he needs mental health care that he might not recognize.

              Just saying they are homeless doesn’t describe who they chose and why.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • chepox
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It shows that giving people $50 is not nearly as effective as giving them more, so the program should shoot for a reasonable floor on the amount per month.